MultiNRC: A Challenging and Native Multilingual Reasoning Evaluation Benchmark for LLMs

Although recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown rapid improvement on reasoning benchmarks in English, the evaluation of such LLMs' multilingual reasoning capability across diverse languages and cultural contexts remains limited. Existing multilingual reasoning benchmarks are typically constructed by translating existing English reasoning benchmarks, biasing these benchmarks towards reasoning problems with context in English language/cultures. In this work, we introduce the Multilingual Native Reasoning Challenge (MultiNRC), a benchmark designed to assess LLMs on more than 1,000 native, linguistic and culturally grounded reasoning questions written by native speakers in French, Spanish, and Chinese. MultiNRC covers four core reasoning categories: language-specific linguistic reasoning, wordplay & riddles, cultural/tradition reasoning, and math reasoning with cultural relevance. For cultural/tradition reasoning and math reasoning with cultural relevance, we also provide English equivalent translations of the multilingual questions by manual translation from native speakers fluent in English. This set of English equivalents can provide a direct comparison of LLM reasoning capacity in other languages vs. English on the same reasoning questions. We systematically evaluate current 14 leading LLMs covering most LLM families on MultiNRC and its English equivalent set. The results show that (1) current LLMs are still not good at native multilingual reasoning, with none scoring above 50% on MultiNRC; (2) LLMs exhibit distinct strengths and weaknesses in handling linguistic, cultural, and logical reasoning tasks; (3) Most models perform substantially better in math reasoning in English compared to in original languages (+10%), indicating persistent challenges with culturally grounded knowledge.

FORTRESS: Frontier Risk Evaluation for National Security and Public Safety

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) introduces dual-use capabilities that could both threaten and bolster national security and public safety (NSPS). Models implement safeguards to protect against potential misuse relevant to NSPS and allow for benign users to receive helpful information. However, current benchmarks often fail to test safeguard robustness to potential NSPS risks in an objective, robust way. We introduce FORTRESS: 500 expert-crafted adversarial prompts with instance-based rubrics of 4-7 binary questions for automated evaluation across 3 domains (unclassified information only): Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE), Political Violence & Terrorism, and Criminal & Financial Illicit Activities, with 10 total subcategories across these domains. Each prompt-rubric pair has a corresponding benign version to test for model over-refusals. This evaluation of frontier LLMs' safeguard robustness reveals varying trade-offs between potential risks and model usefulness: Claude-3.5-Sonnet demonstrates a low average risk score (ARS) (14.09 out of 100) but the highest over-refusal score (ORS) (21.8 out of 100), while Gemini 2.5 Pro shows low over-refusal (1.4) but a high average potential risk (66.29). Deepseek-R1 has the highest ARS at 78.05, but the lowest ORS at only 0.06. Models such as o1 display a more even trade-off between potential risks and over-refusals (with an ARS of 21.69 and ORS of 5.2). To provide policymakers and researchers with a clear understanding of models' potential risks, we publicly release FORTRESS at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ScaleAI/fortress_public. We also maintain a private set for evaluation.