CrisiLangs: A Multilingual Resource for Crisis Warning Generation

Timely and reliable multilingual communication is critical during natural and human-induced disasters, but developing effective solutions for crisis communication is limited by the scarcity of curated parallel data. We propose a domain-adaptive pipeline that expands a small reference corpus, by retrieving and filtering data from general corpora. We use the resulting dataset to fine-tune a small language model for crisis-domain translation and then apply preference optimization to bias outputs toward CEFR A2-level English. Automatic and human evaluation shows that this approach improves readability, while maintaining strong adequacy. Our results indicate that simplified English, combined with domain adaptation, can function as a practical lingua franca for emergency communication when full multilingual coverage is not feasible.

Safety alignment in multilingual models is uneven: a model that reliably refuses a harmful request in English will often comply with the same request in a lower-resource language. We trace this gap mechanistically in sarvam, an Indic-multilingual mixture-of-experts reasoning model, and find it is not a failure to detect harm. Harm is encoded as an internal direction that is nearly language-invariant in mid-network (English-vs-Indic cosine ${\approx}0.9$ at $L11$), and steering that direction upstream causally controls refusal. But the detection direction is orthogonal to the change that actually writes the refusal, which is late and assembled over the course of generation rather than read off in a single forward pass. We attribute the write to a specific, localizable circuit, a mixture-of-experts writer held in check by an attention opposer and price every way of intervening on it: damping the opposer is cheap and effective, amplifying the writer is a cost wall, and surgical edits to the responsible heads do nothing. The circuit's organization, and the gradient method that exposes it, recur in a second, unrelated MoE model, while the lever's strength is architecture-specific. The result is a cost-measured map of where a multilingual safety repair can land, and what it costs

Language models have been adopted faster than evaluation practices that reliably assess their risks, and a growing share of use is affective rather than informational. Within that traffic users disclose suicide and self-harm (SSH) crises. Existing safety benchmarks score models primarily on refusal, but refusal is not the desired behavior here; the conversation requires a substantive supportive response. We introduce DistressBench, 718 English conversations with clinician-authored user turns spanning 23 SSH subcategories, each paired with a task-specific rubric of weighted atomic criteria across seven dimensions of crisis support and a clinician reference response. A model's score is the weighted average over the criteria its reply satisfies, reading directly as the fraction of required care delivered. The best of 25 frontier models satisfies 88.4% of weighted criteria and the median model 71.4%, against 98.7% for clinician references scored on the same criteria. Pooled across all 25 models, in 35.3% of conversations where a model satisfied every criterion for recognizing the crisis, it failed to route the user toward human help. The shortfall concentrates in the dimensions requiring the model to act rather than withhold. Contrasting each dimension's median model against its best separates capability limits from choices: de-escalation reaches 74.6% in the strongest model against a median of 46.0%, and safety disclaimers 84.6% against 8.3%. Multi-turn conversations score below single-turn ones (68.5% against 74.2%). We release the corpus, rubrics, judge calibration labels, and a companion annex of 20 long-horizon red-team transcripts. These results argue for evaluating crisis safety on the care a model delivers rather than on what it declines to say, and for treating de-escalation and resource routing as deployment requirements.