DIA-HARM: Dialectal Disparities in Harmful Content Detection Across 50 English Dialects

We present ArabicDialectSafety, a human-curated Arabic safety dataset of 25,071 prompts covering six Arabic varieties: Modern Standard Arabic, Syrian, Egyptian, Algerian, Palestinian, and Moroccan. The dataset is annotated with dialect labels and seven fine-grained harm categories. We introduce a dual-task evaluation framework for binary safe/unsafe detection and granular harm classification across dialects. Benchmarking seven supervised and generative models, we find that fine-tuned MARBERTv2 achieves the strongest performance, with Macro-F1 scores of 0.95 for binary classification and 0.90 for granular classification, substantially outperforming prompted frontier LLMs, including Arabic-specialized models. Our analyses show that dialect conditioning is most effective when integrated at the representation level, while significant performance gaps remain for low-resource Maghrebi dialects. We further evaluate seven frontier LLMs as response generators on harmful dialectal Arabic prompts and observe unsafe generation rates below 5 percent across models. We release the dataset and code upon acceptance to support future research on dialect-aware Arabic safety evaluation. Warning: This paper contains examples of harmful and potentially offensive content included solely for research purposes.

Language models (LMs) can exhibit biases based on variations in their dialects, even in the absence of a dialect label, a behavior known as covert dialect bias. In this work, we quantify covert dialect bias in online discourse by evaluating how LMs associate stereotypical traits (derived from social psychology research on racial bias) with intent-equivalent tweets in Standard American English (SAE) and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). While prior work shows that LMs associate more negative stereotypes with AAVE when evaluating tweets in isolation, we are surprised to find that this bias is significantly exacerbated when SAE / AAVE tweet pairs are compared side by side, a setting that more closely reflects high-impact decision making contexts in which models are used to rank candidates. The bias only worsens when dialect labels are explicitly specified. This is striking, given the extensive efforts from commercial developers to mitigate bias in their LMs. Encouragingly, we show that counterfactual fairness finetuning can mitigate covert dialect bias for some stereotypical traits, reducing average disparities when evaluating tweets in isolation, however, these improvements do not consistently hold across traits when evaluating SAE / AAVE tweets side by side. Our findings show that existing evaluation settings for covert dialect bias may underestimate its severity, specifically in contrastive settings. Additionally, overt dialect bias remains pronounced even after safety aligned finetuning, indicating that it remains an unresolved problem, and motivates the need for more robust evaluation and mitigation frameworks.

Large language models increasingly understand dialectal English, yet still produce only standard, US-leaning English, leaving dialectal generation, the harder half of the problem, largely unaddressed. We introduce DiaLLM, which continually pretrains three open-weight language model families on the International Corpus of English and applies implicit and explicit post-training paradigms, each combined with three model alignment strategies, giving the first controlled comparison of these components across Australian, Indian, and Northern British English. Our results reveal a robustness-generation gap: benchmarks are shaped by continual pretraining and SFT, while alignment visibly reshapes generation in ways benchmarks do not capture. Explicit variety-targeted adaptation produces output reliably recognised as dialectal and judged more dialectal than broad alignment, yet where human judgement was directly assessed, the method that most aggressively optimises the dialectal reward is not the one judged most dialectal. Independent linguistic analysis corroborates this reward-quality gap, most clearly on two of the three families. No single alignment method dominates, and closing the gap will require richer reward designs and continued investment in dialectal resources. We release all code, checkpoints, and preference datasets.