arXiv preprint ·
Lumen-bench: Cross-Lingual Safety Gaps and the Say-Do Problem in Tool-Calling Large Language Models
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
When a large language model refuses an unethical request, what does refusal mean? In conversation, refusal is bounded by what the model says; once the model is equipped with executable tools, what it does can diverge from what it says, a failure mode that English-only evaluations cannot fully reveal. We introduce Lumen-bench, a behavioral benchmark of tool-calling ethics spanning 30 models, five languages (Portuguese, English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi), 108 Portuguese-authored scenarios, six social-pressure conditions, two system prompts (ethical and neutral), and 21 generic tools. The evaluation comprises 194,400 trials. Judgments come from a reasoning-model judge (o4-mini), calibrated against one Portuguese-speaking author ($n=83$; harmful/non-harmful $κ=0.78$), compared with two other provider judges (Fleiss' $κ=0.78$, $n=607$), and complemented by retrospective sandbox replay. Four findings emerge. (i) Within-model comparisons support higher harmful-action rates in Hindi and Portuguese than English under the ethical prompt, and Hindi and Spanish under the neutral prompt, after multiple-testing correction. (ii) Premium models have lower median violation rates, although price does not guarantee safety or competence. (iii) Replacing the ethical system prompt with a neutral one raises pooled violation rates from 2.76\% to 13.64\%. (iv) In 8.57\% of substantive-call cases, refusal or ethical objection accompanies a harmful tool call: the judges consistently identify the say-do gap, although they differ in how many responses they assign to this category. Matched benign controls demonstrate legitimate task completion in 82.8\% of 3,300 trials. Code and reproduction scripts are available at https://github.com/TropicAI-Research/lumen.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Scaling Laws for Multimodal Data Mixtures
Sequent-Prover: Training Agents for Formal, Checkable SMT-based Reasoning
MemForm: Benchmarking Memory Formation Poisoning in LLM Agents
Do correct answers have stable latent knowledge support?
Neither True nor False: Do LLMs Represent Truth-Value Gaps in Plural Predication?
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.