aiqbench analysis
This paper presents a rigorous mathematical framework for diagnosing cross-lingual safety failures in large language models, distinguishing between recalibratable faults and fundamental representation-level collisions. By characterizing safety drift through linear-algebraic properties like cross-Gram functionals, the authors provide a diagnostic tool that significantly outperforms static baselines in predicting control errors on unseen states. This work advances the field of AI safety by offering precise conditions under which output behavior alone is insufficient to guarantee model alignment across different languages.
Semantic Fibers and Cross-Gram Interference: A Calculus of Safety Drift in Overcomplete Representations
arXiv:2609.14861v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A deployed language model may refuse a harmful request in English yet comply with its faithful translation, revealing a cross-lingual safety failure that cannot be characterized reliably by output behavior alone. We formalize this phenomenon through an audited equivalence relation and show that, for a declared quotient, representation, metric, feature dictionary, scoring head, threshold, and contrast model, the resulting safety drift admits an exact linear-algebraic characterization. Specifically, the drift is a cross-Gram functional of the within-fiber contrast; its worst admissible value is a support function, while margin invariance is characterized by an annihilator condition. We introduce an intrinsic calibrated exposure measure, governed by the leverage duality $\chi^2=1/\ell-1$, which separates observed drift into three diagnostically distinct regimes: a reader fault removable by recalibration, an exact correction that is too ill-conditioned to be reliable, and a representation-level collision that no readout-only intervention can remove. Thus, identical observed exposure can lead to fundamentally different remediation verdicts. The framework also extends to cone-valued safety heads. An untied order-swap identity provides a diagnostic for the linear control interface; its calibration-state residual predicts a distinct three-control composition error on unseen states and targets, achieving median Spearman correlation $0.964$, compared with $0.269$ for a static cross-Gram baseline. etc.....
Abstract:A deployed language model may refuse a harmful request in English yet comply with its faithful translation, revealing a cross-lingual safety failure that cannot be characterized reliably by output behavior alone. We formalize this phenomenon through an audited equivalence relation and show that, for a declared quotient, representation, metric, feature dictionary, scoring head, threshold, and contrast model, the resulting safety drift admits an exact linear-algebraic characterization. Specifically, the drift is a cross-Gram functional of the within-fiber contrast; its worst admissible value is a support function, while margin invariance is characterized by an annihilator condition. We introduce an intrinsic calibrated exposure measure, governed by the leverage duality $\chi^2=1/\ell-1$, which separates observed drift into three diagnostically distinct regimes: a reader fault removable by recalibration, an exact correction that is too ill-conditioned to be reliable, and a representation-level collision that no readout-only intervention can remove. Thus, identical observed exposure can lead to fundamentally different remediation verdicts. The framework also extends to cone-valued safety heads. An untied order-swap identity provides a diagnostic for the linear control interface; its calibration-state residual predicts a distinct three-control composition error on unseen states and targets, achieving median Spearman correlation $0.964$, compared with $0.269$ for a static cross-Gram baseline. etc.....
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.14861 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.14861v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.14861 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 · 298 words
Related coverage

I Did This Without Your Knowledge
LessWrong · Oct 17, 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026
Safe Embodied AI for Long-horizon Tasks: A Cross-layer Analysis of Robotic Manipulation
arXiv · Jun 6, 2026

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 16, 2026