Against All Odds: Overcoming Typology, Script, and Language Confusion in Multilingual Embedding Inversion Attacks
On the map: LLM safety and security → Jailbreaking
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) are susceptible to malicious influence by cyber attackers through intrusions such as adversarial, backdoor, and embedding inversion attacks. In response, the burgeoning field of LLM Security aims to study and defend against such threats. Thus far, the majority of works in this area have focused on monolingual English models, however, emerging research suggests that multilingual LLMs may be more vulnerable to various attacks than their monolingual counterparts. While previous work has investigated embedding inversion over a small subset of European languages, it is challenging to extrapolate these findings to languages from different linguistic families and with differing scripts. To this end, we explore the security of multilingual LLMs in the context of embedding inversion attacks and investigate cross-lingual and cross-script inversion across 20 languages, spanning over 8 language families and 12 scripts. Our findings indicate that languages written in Arabic script and Cyrillic script are particularly vulnerable to embedding inversion, as are languages within the Indo-Aryan language family. We further observe that inversion models tend to suffer from language confusion, sometimes greatly reducing the efficacy of an attack. Accordingly, we systematically explore this bottleneck for inversion models, uncovering predictable patterns which could be leveraged by attackers. Ultimately, this study aims to further the field's understanding of the outstanding security vulnerabilities facing multilingual LLMs and raise awareness for the languages most at risk of negative impact from these attacks.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Jailbreaking, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 15 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2024.
Builds on
15 of 40 references.
References · 15
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
- 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
- 2020The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP Worldcited by 789
- 2020XTREME: A Massively Multilingual Multi-task Benchmark for Evaluating Cross-lingual Generalizationcited by 738
- 2020Are All Languages Created Equal in Multilingual BERT?cited by 206
- 2020Information Leakage in Embedding Modelscited by 199
- 2023Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Textcited by 189
- 2023Sentence Embedding Leaks More Information than You Expect: Generative Embedding Inversion Attack to Recover the Whole Sentencecited by 81
- 2024Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMscited by 75
- 2021WhiteningBERT: An Easy Unsupervised Sentence Embedding Approachcited by 68
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 5; 2026: 4.
10 papers.
- 2024Large Language Models are Easily Confused: A Quantitative Metric, Security Implications and Typological Analysiscited by 7
- 2025Trustworthy Machine Learning via Memorization and the Granular Long-Tail: A Survey on Interactions, Tradeoffs, and Beyondcited by 6
- 2025ALGEN: Few-shot Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddings using Alignment and Generationcited by 4
- 2026Zero2Text: Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddingscited by 4
- 2026Do LLMs Really Memorize Personally Identifiable Information? Revisiting PII Leakage with a Cue-Controlled Memorization Frameworkcited by 3
- 2025NLP Security and Ethics, in the Wildcited by 2
- 2025Beyond Weaponization: NLP Security for Medium and Lower-Resourced Languages in Their Own Rightcited by 2
- 2025LAGO: Few-shot Crosslingual Embedding Inversion Attacks via Language Similarity-Aware Graph Optimizationcited by 1
- 2026Semantic Leakage from Image Embeddingscited by 0
- 2026CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performancecited by 0
- 2026CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance20 Aug 2026
- 2026Zero2Text: Zero-Training Cross-Domain Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddings2 Feb 2026
- 2026Semantic Leakage from Image Embeddings30 Jan 2026
- 2026Do LLMs Really Memorize Personally Identifiable Information? Revisiting PII Leakage with a Cue-Controlled Memorization Framework7 Jan 2026
- 2025Beyond Weaponization: NLP Security for Medium and Lower-Resourced Languages in Their Own Right4 Jul 2025
- 2025LAGO: Few-shot Crosslingual Embedding Inversion Attacks via Language Similarity-Aware Graph Optimization21 May 2025
- 2025NLP Security and Ethics, in the Wild9 Apr 2025
- 2025Trustworthy Machine Learning via Memorization and the Granular Long-Tail: A Survey on Interactions, Tradeoffs, and Beyond10 Mar 2025
- 2025ALGEN: Few-shot Inversion Attacks on Textual Embeddings using Alignment and Generation16 Feb 2025
- 2024Large Language Models are Easily Confused: A Quantitative Metric, Security Implications and Typological Analysis17 Oct 2024