Polarity Blindness in LLM Safety: A Systematic Study of Negation, Antonym Substitution, and

Using a 260-prompt benchmark across 10 state-of-the-art LLMs and 3 languages (English, Spanish, Czech), stratified by harmfulness potential and evaluated on a validated 0-5 harm scale, we find that polarity blindness affects most evaluated models, with mean harm scores reaching 4.12 for the most vulnerable model. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 21 October 2026. Negation remains a persistent challenge for language models across NLP tasks and modalities. We show that this weakness can undermine LLM safety guardrails through a structural vulnerability we term polarity blindness: the failure to recognize harmful intent after polarity-altering linguistic transformations. We study two forms of polarity inversion: grammatical negation and antonym replacement, and use synonym replacement as a polarity-preserving control. We further test whether an adversarial textual wrapper amplifies these failures. The effect persists across typologically differing negation systems, suggesting that polarity blindness reflects a broader limitation in semantic robustness rather than a language- or grammar-specific failure.

Why it counts

Using a 260-prompt benchmark across 10 state-of-the-art LLMs and 3 languages (English, Spanish, Czech), stratified by harmfulness potential and evaluated on a validated 0-5 harm scale, we find that polarity blindness affects most evaluated models, with mean harm scores reaching 4.12 for the most vulnerable model.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.