Why Do Safety Guardrails Degrade Across Languages?
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:Why Do Safety Guardrails Degrade Across Languages?
Abstract:Large language models exhibit safety degradation in non-English languages. Standard evaluation relies on Jailbreak Success Rate (JSR), which confounds several safety-driving factors into one, obscuring the specific cause(s) of safety failure. We introduce a latent variable model, a Multi-Group Item Response Theory (IRT) framework, that decouples safety-driving factors such as language-agnostic safety robustness ($\theta$), intrinsic prompt hardness ($\beta$), global language processing difficulty ($\gamma$), and a prompt-specific cross-lingual safety gap ($\tau$). Using the MultiJail dataset, we evaluate the safety robustness of 61 model configurations across 5 closed-model families and 10 languages of varying resource, aggregating a dataset of 1.9 million rows. Exploratory Factor Analysis shows safety is primarily unidimensional: models refuse different harm types mainly through a shared mechanism. Contrary to the expected trend that safety degrades largely in low-resource languages, 22 model configurations are more vulnerable in English than in low-resource languages. Low-resource languages produce more uncertain responses (high entropy) than high-resource languages. Also, high-$\tau$ prompts cluster in physical harm categories like Theft and Weapons and lower-resource languages, trends validated through cross-dataset generalization. While global translation quality shows low correlation with $\tau$, severe mistranslations drive high-bias outliers, as validated by native speakers. Cultural and conceptual grounding mismatches also contribute to $\tau$. In predictive validation, the IRT framework achieves $\mathrm{AUC} = 0.940$, outperforming simpler baselines in predicting safe refusal of unsafe prompts. Our framework reveals concept-language vulnerabilities that aggregate metrics obscure, enabling fairer cross-lingual safety evaluation and targeted improvements in dataset construction.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.17173 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2605.17173v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.17173
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
The Annotation Scarcity Paradox in Low-Resource NLP Evaluation: A Decade of Acceleration and Emerging Constraints
May 20
-
Benchmarking Commercial ASR Systems on Code-Switching Speech: Arabic, Persian, and German
May 20
-
ReacTOD: Bounded Neuro-Symbolic Agentic NLU for Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking
May 20
-
Agent Meltdowns: The Road to Hell Is Paved with Helpful Agents
May 20
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.