Existing evaluations of harmful content detection rely predominantly on static benchmarks, which struggle to reflect the interactive adversarial ecosystem of real-world content platforms where users continuously revise their expressions in response to moderation feedback. This mismatch creates a significant performance gap between offline benchmark scores and online deployment effectiveness. To the best of our knowledge, we present EvoHarmBench, the first dynamic adversarial evaluation framework for content moderation systems. The framework employs an iterative optimization loop that evolves evasion strategies at the semantic-cluster level, while simultaneously optimizing for evasion success and human readability. We systematically evaluate LLM-based defense models which are widely used in real world moderation systems. The evaluation covers 229 semantic sub-clusters across five violation categories, derived from 5,002 real-world adversarial samples collected from content platforms. Our experiments reveal substantial vulnerabilities even in leading commercial systems: after twelve optimization iterations, the attack success rate under readability constraints reaches 80.3% within SOTA LLM moderators. We will release the full benchmark data, evaluation framework, and code to encourage a shift from static benchmarking toward dynamic adversarial evaluation in content safety research.
Large language model (LLM)-powered content moderation systems are a critical defense against harmful online content. However, they operate primarily on tokenized text and often overlook visual cues that humans naturally use when interpreting content. We show that this limitation creates a fundamental vulnerability: content readily recognized as harmful by humans can evade automated moderation. To systematically study this problem, we introduce Human-Perceptible Adversarial Attacks (HPAA), which embed harmful expressions into otherwise benign text using visually salient typographic manipulations. HPAA strategically combines features such as spacing, emphasis, and spatial arrangement to preserve human recognition while reducing machine detectability. Operating in a black-box setting with a small query budget, the attack automatically generates evasive content without model access or gradient information. We evaluate HPAA on multiple datasets and thirteen widely deployed moderation systems, including commercial APIs and state-of-the-art open-source guardrails. With only three detector queries, generated attacks achieve over 86% human recognition while keeping detection rates below 1% across evaluated systems. We further identify the typographic factors driving successful evasion, analyze why current moderation architectures fail to capture these signals, and discuss practical defenses. Our findings reveal a fundamental blind spot in current LLM-based moderation systems and motivate moderation approaches that better align with human perceptual understanding.
Qin Yang, Lu Malloy, Joshua Lee +4
University of Connecticut · University of Tennessee · University of California, Santa Barbara +1
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, yet they remain vulnerable to generating harmful content. From adversarial jailbreaks that bypass safety filters to implicit hate that evades detection, the range of risks these models pose continues to grow. While both specialized content moderators and general-purpose LLMs are being used as safety layers, the question of which model is best suited for which type of harmful content remains unanswered. We present the most comprehensive evaluation of LLM safety capabilities to date, systematically testing \textbf{53} models across \textbf{11} datasets that we organize into four distinct categories. Our evaluation under both prompt-only and prompt-response settings uncovers critical blind spots: large frontier models that lead on one category fall significantly behind smaller, specialized alternatives on others, and real-world conversational safety remains largely unsolved across all model families. These findings challenge the assumption that scale alone ensures safety, and provide the community with a structured framework for informed model selection.
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on standard content moderation benchmarks. However, these benchmarks often aggregate multiple moderation criteria into a single label, making it unclear whether models can disentangle them and reliably apply each criterion when making decisions. To study whether LLMs exhibit criterion-conditioned behaviour, we introduce Diagnostic Evaluation of COntent (DECO), a criterion-independent factorisation of content that enables controlled, criterion-level evaluation. We also introduce pairwise evaluation to compare model outputs across different criteria for the same input. Across four moderation datasets and four LLMs, we find that strong benchmark performance can hide substantial failures at the criterion level. Models struggle most when correct decisions depend not on overall harmfulness, but on the specific aspect of the content that the criterion requires them to assess. Our results highlight a key limitation of current content moderation benchmarks: strong performance on aggregated labels does not provide sufficient evidence that LLMs can reliably evaluate content with respect to individual moderation criteria. These findings call for the development of evaluation methods that explicitly measure criterion-conditioned behaviour.