Humans overrely on overconfident language models, across languages

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06306v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2025 18:01:01 GMT
• Title: Humans overrely on overconfident language models, across languages
• Authors: Neil Rathi, Dan Jurafsky, Kaitlyn Zhou,
• Abstract summary: We study the risks of multilingual linguistic (mis)calibration, overconfidence, and overreliance across five languages.<n>We find that overreliance risks are high across all languages.
• Score: 32.71245803698373
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are deployed globally, it is crucial that their responses are calibrated across languages to accurately convey uncertainty and limitations. Previous work has shown that LLMs are linguistically overconfident in English, leading users to overrely on confident generations. However, the usage and interpretation of epistemic markers (e.g., 'It's definitely,' 'I think') can differ sharply across languages. Here, we study the risks of multilingual linguistic (mis)calibration, overconfidence, and overreliance across five languages to evaluate the safety of LLMs in a global context. We find that overreliance risks are high across all languages. We first analyze the distribution of LLM-generated epistemic markers, and observe that while LLMs are cross-linguistically overconfident, they are also sensitive to documented linguistic variation. For example, models generate the most markers of uncertainty in Japanese and the most markers of certainty in German and Mandarin. We then measure human reliance rates across languages, finding that while users strongly rely on confident LLM generations in all languages, reliance behaviors differ cross-linguistically: for example, users rely significantly more on expressions of uncertainty in Japanese than in English. Taken together, these results indicate high risk of reliance on overconfident model generations across languages. Our findings highlight the challenges of multilingual linguistic calibration and stress the importance of culturally and linguistically contextualized model safety evaluations.

Related papers

• The Emergence of Abstract Thought in Large Language Models Beyond Any Language [95.50197866832772]
  Large language models (LLMs) function effectively across a diverse range of languages.<n>Preliminary studies observe that the hidden activations of LLMs often resemble English, even when responding to non-English prompts.<n>Recent results show strong multilingual performance, even surpassing English performance on specific tasks in other languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T16:00:54Z)
• Language Matters: How Do Multilingual Input and Reasoning Paths Affect Large Reasoning Models? [59.970391602080205]
  Despite multilingual training, LRMs tend to default to reasoning in high-resource languages at test time.<n>Cultural reasoning degrades performance on reasoning tasks but benefits cultural tasks, while safety evaluations exhibit language-specific behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T02:46:18Z)
• When Less Language is More: Language-Reasoning Disentanglement Makes LLMs Better Multilingual Reasoners [111.50503126693444]
  We show that language-specific ablation consistently boosts multilingual reasoning performance.<n>Compared to post-training, our training-free ablation achieves comparable or superior results with minimal computational overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T08:35:05Z)
• The Hidden Space of Safety: Understanding Preference-Tuned LLMs in Multilingual context [0.9130277390156759]
  Alignment tuning has enabled large language models to excel in reasoning, instruction-following, and minimizing harmful generations.<n>Despite their widespread deployment, these models exhibit a monolingual bias, raising concerns about the effectiveness of alignment across languages.<n>Current alignment methods predominantly focus on English, leaving it unclear how alignment mechanism generalizes to multilingual settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T15:46:46Z)
• LLMs Lost in Translation: M-ALERT uncovers Cross-Linguistic Safety Inconsistencies [63.10843814055688]
  M-ALERT is a benchmark that evaluates the safety of Large Language Models in five languages.<n>M-ALERT includes 15k high-quality prompts per language, totaling 75k, with category-wise annotations.<n>Our experiments on 39 state-of-the-art LLMs highlight the importance of language-specific safety analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T16:46:54Z)
• Thank You, Stingray: Multilingual Large Language Models Can Not (Yet) Disambiguate Cross-Lingual Word Sense [30.62699081329474]
  We introduce a novel benchmark for cross-lingual sense disambiguation, StingrayBench. We collect false friends in four language pairs, namely Indonesian-Malay, Indonesian-Tagalog, Chinese-Japanese, and English-German. In our analysis of various models, we observe they tend to be biased toward higher-resource languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T22:09:43Z)
• XTRUST: On the Multilingual Trustworthiness of Large Language Models [14.128810448194699]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks.<n>A key question that now preoccupies the AI community concerns the capabilities and limitations of these models.<n>X is the first comprehensive multilingual trustworthiness benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T05:38:33Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts.<n>We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion.<n>We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• Exploring Multilingual Concepts of Human Value in Large Language Models: Is Value Alignment Consistent, Transferable and Controllable across Languages? [34.38469832305664]
  This paper focuses on human values-related concepts (i.e., value concepts) due to their significance for AI safety. We first empirically confirm the presence of value concepts within LLMs in a multilingual format. Further analysis on the cross-lingual characteristics of these concepts reveals 3 traits arising from language resource disparities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T07:18:39Z)
• MlingConf: A Comprehensive Study of Multilingual Confidence Estimation on Large Language Models [36.33453112932689]
  This paper introduces a comprehensive investigation of Multilingual Confidence estimation (MlingConf) on Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>The benchmark comprises four meticulously checked and human-evaluated high-quality multilingual datasets for LA tasks and one for the LS task tailored to specific social, cultural, and geographical contexts of a language.<n>Experiments reveal that on LA tasks English exhibits notable linguistic dominance in confidence estimations than other languages, while on LS tasks, using question-related language to prompt LLMs demonstrates better linguistic dominance in multilingual confidence estimations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:20:06Z)
• All Languages Matter: On the Multilingual Safety of Large Language Models [96.47607891042523]
  We build the first multilingual safety benchmark for large language models (LLMs) XSafety covers 14 kinds of commonly used safety issues across 10 languages that span several language families. We propose several simple and effective prompting methods to improve the multilingual safety of ChatGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T05:23:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.