Skip to content
Review

LLM Safety Alignment in Low-Resource Languages: A Systematic Literature Review

Jul 2026 · 0 citations · 55 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Overall, the results reveal a persistent multilingual safety gap, and suggest that future progress will require culturally grounded benchmarks, participatory data collection, balanced multilingual pre-training, and scalable multilingual alignment methods.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved substantial progress in safety alignment, yet their safety guarantees remain significantly weaker in low-resource and multilingual settings than in high-resource languages. In this paper, we conduct a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of LLM safety alignment in low-resource languages by adopting the PRISMA 2020 methodology. Out of roughly 1,500 papers identified from Semantic Scholar, arXiv, and OpenAlex, 50 relevant studies have been selected and analyzed. Our review is organized around four themes: safety alignment methods, multilingual safety risks, evaluation benchmarks, and cross-lingual transferability. We further propose a taxonomy of safety alignment approaches based on three adaptation mechanisms: data adaptation, objective optimization, and mechanistic alignment. Across literature, translated English benchmarks fail to sufficiently represent culturally rooted harms, and multilingual models are more vulnerable to cross-lingual jailbreaks, code-switching attacks, and safety degradation in underrepresented languages. These failures are driven by several key factors, including uneven multilingual pre-training coverage, insufficient native-language preference data, poor transfer of safety representations, and a lack of culturally aware evaluation frameworks. The review also notes that many low-resource languages, especially African languages, have fewer safety benchmarks available than other multilingual regions. Overall, the results reveal a persistent multilingual safety gap, and suggest that future progress will require culturally grounded benchmarks, participatory data collection, balanced multilingual pre-training, and scalable multilingual alignment methods.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

The Illusion of Cross-Lingual Safety in Low-Resource Languages

This work investigates cross-lingual safety transfer in four African languages, Twi, Hausa, Amharic, and Swahili, using LoDNA, a new safety dataset that pairs literal translations with culturally localized prompts to demonstrate superficial safety alignment.

Abigail Oppong, P SAM SAHIL, Tadesse Destaw Belay et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

Minionese: Comprehensive Benchmark and Mechanistic Study of Multilingual LLM Safety

It is shown that English-only safety evaluations are insufficient; they require accounting for script family, perturbation type, and per-language alignment coverage, and a geometric mechanistic analysis of refusal failure across language tiers.

Chigozirim Ifebi, Brent Kong, Ayushi Mehrotra · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Jul 2026

Safety Alignment Illusion: The Cross-Lingual Safety Gap in LLMs

Current safety alignment training for Large Language Models (LLMs) are heavily English-centric. When such safety filters fail for non-English languages, the consequences are immediate and user-facing: voice assistants and spoken dialogue systems may produce stereotype-reinforcing outputs, bypassing the standard English-focused safety alignments and propagating harmful bias to non-English speaking communities. For spoken language technologies deployed across India's linguistically diverse population, this represents a critical failure mode. To address this cross-lingual gap, we introduce INCLUDE (Indian Cultural Lens for Understanding and Detecting Embedded Biases), a multilingual evaluation benchmark designed to quantify Indian-centric socio-cultural biases. INCLUDE consists of 2,604 prompts spanning six prompt languages: English, Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, and Hinglish (Hindi-English code-mix). We evaluate ten open- and closed-source LLMs against this benchmark, analyzing 14,988 bias scores. Our statistical results reveal two key findings. First, Bengali yielded the highest average bias score in open-source models. Second, English demonstrated a notable reversal, producing the lowest bias in open-source models but the highest bias in closed-source models.

Namya Bhatnagar · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Evaluating Automated Safety Benchmarks for Small Language Models

A large-scale assessment of the effectiveness and robustness of these automated pipelines is conducted by evaluating five widely used benchmark suites across 26 open-source SLMs under a unified judging rubric, which reveals a capability-safety confound that mixes model capability with apparent safety.

Nyamtulla Shaik, Fengjun Li, Bo Luo · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

BabelSteering: Multilingual Safety Alignment via English Steering Vectors

The findings suggest that activation steering may provide a practical, low- cost mechanism for extending English-derived safety signals to other languages, and introduce a multilingual translation-and-evaluation pipeline to facilitate future work on cross-lingual safety interventions.

Emma V. Stein, Dominik Meier, Terry Ruas et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Language-Specific Gaps in AI Safety Training Datasets

It is connected to a documented, persistent asymmetry in multilingual jailbreak robustness (single-turn attacks largely mitigated, multi-turn attacks still effective), arguing that this asymmetry is structurally consistent with where the audit finds training and evaluation data thinnest.

Chialuka Prisca-Mary Onuoha, Bright Etornam Sunu, Rashidat Sikiru · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.