Large Language Models (LLMs) have been reported to “leak” Personally Identifiable Information (PII), with successful PII reconstruction often interpreted as evidence of memorization. We propose a principled revision of memorization evaluation for LLMs, arguing that PII leakage should be evaluated under low lexical cue conditions, where target PII cannot be reconstructed through prompt-induced generalization or pattern completion. We formalize Cue-Resistant Memorization (CRM) as a cue-controlled evaluation framework and a necessary condition for valid memorization evaluation, explicitly conditioning on prompt-target overlap cues. Using CRM, we conduct a large-scale multilingual re-evaluation of PII leakage across 32 languages and multiple memorization paradigms. Revisiting reconstruction-based settings, including verbatim prefix-suffix completion and associative reconstruction, we find that their apparent effectiveness is driven primarily by direct surface-form cues rather than by true memorization. When such cues are controlled for, reconstruction success diminishes substantially. We further examine cue-free generation and membership inference, both of which exhibit extremely low true positive rates. Overall, our results suggest that previously reported PII leakage is better explained by cue-driven behavior than by genuine memorization, highlighting the importance of cue-controlled evaluation for reliably quantifying privacy-relevant memorization in LLMs.

Language Confusion is a phenomenon where Large Language Models (LLMs) generate text that is neither in the desired language, nor in a contextually appropriate language. This phenomenon presents a critical challenge in text generation by LLMs, often appearing as erratic and unpredictable behavior. We hypothesize that there are linguistic regularities to this inherent vulnerability in LLMs and shed light on patterns of language confusion across LLMs. We introduce a novel metric, Language Confusion Entropy, designed to directly measure and quantify this confusion, based on language distributions informed by linguistic typology and lexical variation. Comprehensive comparisons with the Language Confusion Benchmark (Marchisio et al., 2024) confirm the effectiveness of our metric, revealing patterns of language confusion across LLMs. We further link language confusion to LLM security, and find patterns in the case of multilingual embedding inversion attacks. Our analysis demonstrates that linguistic typology offers theoretically grounded interpretation, and valuable insights into leveraging language similarities as a prior for LLM alignment and security.

We present the first comprehensive study of Memorization in Multilingual Large Language Models (MLLMs), analyzing 95 languages using models across diverse model scales, architectures, and memorization definitions. As MLLMs are increasingly deployed, understanding their memorization behavior has become critical. Yet prior work has focused primarily on monolingual models, leaving multilingual memorization underexplored, despite the inherently long-tailed nature of training corpora. We find that the prevailing assumption, that memorization is highly correlated with training data availability, fails to fully explain memorization patterns in MLLMs. We hypothesize that treating languages in isolation — ignoring their similarities — obscures the true patterns of memorization. To address this, we propose a novel graph-based correlation metric that incorporates language similarity to analyze cross-lingual memorization. Our analysis reveals that among similar languages, those with fewer training tokens tend to exhibit higher memorization, a trend that only emerges when cross-lingual relationships are explicitly modeled. These findings underscore the importance of a language-aware perspective in evaluating and mitigating memorization vulnerabilities in MLLMs. This also constitutes empirical evidence that language similarity both explains Memorization in MLLMs and underpins Cross-lingual Transferability, with broad implications for multilingual NLP.