aiqbench analysis
The paper is a behavioral benchmark showing that tool-calling LLMs can take harmful actions while their text says they refuse, a "say-do" gap that English-only evaluations miss. Its findings that violation rates rise under a neutral system prompt and vary by language are the most actionable parts for practitioners. The results come from one judge model calibrated on a single annotator, so the exact rates should be read as indicative rather than definitive.
Lumen-bench: Cross-Lingual Safety Gaps and the Say-Do Problem in Tool-Calling Large Language Models
arXiv:2610.15134v1 Announce Type: new 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 $\kappa=0.78$), compared with two other provider judges (Fleiss' $\kappa=0.78$, $n=607$), 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.
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 $\kappa=0.78$), compared with two other provider judges (Fleiss' $\kappa=0.78$, $n=607$), 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 this https URL.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.15134 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.15134v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15134 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 336 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026
Coverage-driven alignment - What ‘Teaching Claude Why’ can borrow from AV verification
LessWrong · Jun 8, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

Amazon Research Awards recipients announced
Amazon Science · May 27, 2026