Harm Is Behavioural, Moderation Is Lexical: How Language and Culture Decide Whom Automated Safety Systems Protect and Whom They Silence

Large language models (LLMs) designed to interact with users are typically trained to respond appropriately to harmful or toxic content. However, ensuring appropriate responses becomes more challenging in diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, where safety risks may be expressed or interpreted differently. Building safe AI systems therefore requires detecting safety risks, understanding their nature, and responding appropriately, while accounting for linguistic and cultural variations that add complexity to each stage. In this work, we introduce AfriGuard, a culturally grounded multilingual dataset for studying harmful intent, safety-category understanding, and refusal behavior across 10 African languages and English. Our findings reveal that guardrail models underperform both open- and closed-source LLMs on safety-intent and safety-category classification, while models show limited understanding of appropriate safety behavior, scoring below 60% F1. We further find that models often fail to respond appropriately to unsafe prompts not because they explicitly refuse, but because they produce linguistically inadequate responses that result in incidental non-assistance rather than proper refusals. Finally, using AfriGuard, we develop efficient guardrail models that achieve performance competitive with models up to 30x larger, introduce refusal detectors that improve average performance by 43.9% over existing detectors, and demonstrate that supervised fine-tuning can substantially improve overall safety performance.

Large language models exhibit safety degradation in non-English languages. Standard evaluation relies on Jailbreak Success Rate (JSR), which confounds several safety-driving factors into one, obscuring the specific cause(s) of safety failure. We introduce a latent variable model, a Multi-Group Item Response Theory (IRT) framework, that decouples safety-driving factors such as language-agnostic safety robustness ($θ$), intrinsic prompt hardness ($β$), global language processing difficulty ($γ$), and a prompt-specific cross-lingual safety gap ($τ$). Using the MultiJail dataset, we evaluate the safety robustness of 61 model configurations across 5 closed-model families and 10 languages of varying resource, aggregating a dataset of 1.9 million rows. Exploratory Factor Analysis shows safety is primarily unidimensional: models refuse different harm types mainly through a shared mechanism. Contrary to the expected trend that safety degrades largely in low-resource languages, 22 model configurations are more vulnerable in English than in low-resource languages. Low-resource languages produce more uncertain responses (high entropy) than high-resource languages. Also, high-$τ$ prompts cluster in physical harm categories like Theft and Weapons and lower-resource languages, trends validated through cross-dataset generalization. While global translation quality shows low correlation with $τ$, severe mistranslations drive high-bias outliers, as validated by native speakers. Cultural and conceptual grounding mismatches also contribute to $τ$. In predictive validation, the IRT framework achieves $\mathrm{AUC} = 0.940$, outperforming simpler baselines in predicting safe refusal of unsafe prompts. Our framework reveals concept-language vulnerabilities that aggregate metrics obscure, enabling fairer cross-lingual safety evaluation and targeted improvements in dataset construction.

LLM agents increasingly use retrieval tools across languages, yet their safety evaluation remains English-centric. It remains unclear whether language affects tool admission, post-retrieval generation, or both. We independently vary request, retrieved-page, and required response languages in a controlled URL-retrieval setting across ten models and seven languages. We identify Safety Loss through Interlingual Processing (SLIP). Non-English harmful requests increase mean tool admission from 46.9% to 67.4%, with a positive mean change in every model. This pattern also persists in an autonomous retrieval setup across all four models tested in this setting. Requiring answers in the page language increases pooled harmfulness on matched tool calls from 50.3% to 57.4% across four closed-weight models, mainly in Chinese and Hindi. Translating pages alone produces no consistent harm increase in eight models with comparable inference settings. Automated audits show that a non-harmful response may be a genuine safety refusal, a deflection citing language difficulties, or an unusable answer. Harmfulness labels alone cannot distinguish these outcomes. Multilingual safety evaluations should therefore measure tool admission and response harmfulness separately and distinguish refusal from capability failure.