# A Framework to Assess Multilingual Vulnerabilities of LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13081 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13081/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Mar 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08419/) (2023)
- [The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP World](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09095/) (2020)
- [GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10253/) (2023)
- [Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13860/) (2023)
- [MART: Improving LLM Safety with Multi-round Automatic Red-Teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07689/) (2023)
- [The Language Barrier: Dissecting Safety Challenges of LLMs in Multilingual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13136/) (2024)
- [Some Languages are More Equal than Others: Probing Deeper into the Linguistic Disparity in the NLP World](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.08523/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [BanglaVeilGuard: Cross-Script Safety Benchmarking and Lightweight Guardrails for Bangla Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21880/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are acquiring a wider range of capabilities, including understanding and responding in multiple languages. While they undergo safety training to prevent them from answering illegal questions, imbalances in training data and human evaluation resources can make these models more susceptible to attacks in low-resource languages (LRL). This paper proposes a framework to automatically assess the multilingual vulnerabilities of commonly used LLMs. Using our framework, we evaluated six LLMs across eight languages representing varying levels of resource availability. We validated the assessments generated by our automated framework through human evaluation in two languages, demonstrating that the framework's results align with human judgments in most cases. Our findings reveal vulnerabilities in LRL; however, these may pose minimal risk as they often stem from the model's poor performance, resulting in incoherent responses.