LLM Safety Benchmarks

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

23 papers in the last four weeks, up 44% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 141

Sep 1, 2026cs.CL

SDARE-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Conversational Stigma Detection and Response in Dyadic and Group Dialogue

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in advice seeking and decision making that may affect social judgements. Despite stigma's profound effects on people and communities, benchmarks remain scarce. Existing general-domain evaluations typically rely on static prompts and fixed-format tasks, overlooking conversational contexts and audience effects in everyday communication. To address these gaps, we introduce SDARE-Bench, the first scenario-based benchmark evaluating both stigma detection and open-ended response generation in LLMs, comprising 1,138 dyadic queries and 1,388 group dialogue. Empirical results across 8 LLMs consistently demonstrate poor identification of stigma components, especially in group dialogues. In open-ended response generation, stigma expression was substantially higher in group settings than in dyadic, with weaker resistance to stigma and more unrealistic advice. Responses were evaluated using a classifier trained on 1,392 human annotated responses. In constructed group pressure settings, stigma expression rates further increased to a striking average of 97.5%. Our findings identify stigma response as a recurring LLM safety vulnerability, especially in socially complex conversational contexts.

Stephanie Fong, Yiwen Jiang, Zimu Wang +12

Monash University · University of Liverpool · University of Edinburgh +2

LLM Safety Benchmarks Social Bias in Language Models LLM Safety Evaluation

Sep 1, 2026cs.LG

CopyShield: A Cross-Level Benchmark of Copyright Defenses in LLMs

Large language models can reproduce memorized text verbatim, yet copyright defenses are usually evaluated under incompatible protocols. We introduce CopyShield, a controlled benchmark comparing three representative defenses at distinct intervention levels: contrastive decoding (output), Direct Preference Optimization (behavioral), and activation intervention (representation). We evaluate CopyShield on two model families, LLaMA-3.1-8B and Mistral-7B-v0.3, using controlled memorization over five public-domain books and a shared protocol measuring literal leakage, calibrated non-literal leakage, utility, and degeneracy. Across these methods, intervention level is associated with distinct compliance-utility trade-offs. On LLaMA-3.1-8B, contrastive decoding remains near-degeneracy-free (0-2%) but reaches a literal-suppression floor at NV-Recall 0.192-0.203. DPO nearly eliminates literal leakage (0.263 to 0.002) but induces paraphrase-loop degeneracy in 58% of QA outputs, with no utility gain over the SFT baseline. Activation intervention attains the lowest non-literal flagging rate (1/200) by blocking 84% of non-literal queries before generation. Human evaluation confirms that DPO has low coherence, whereas activation lowers perceived copyright risk through broad refusal. On Mistral-7B-v0.3, the output- and representation-level patterns persist, while DPO degeneracy falls to 10-14%, showing that its severity is model-dependent. Together, CopyShield provides cross-level reference baselines and identifies targeted non-literal suppression as an open challenge. The code is available at https://github.com/spotai-mbzuai/CopyShield.git.

Maryam Alshehyari, Dushyant Singh Chauhan, Samuele Poppi +3

Computing and Mathematical Science Division Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI)

LLM Safety Benchmarks Direct Preference Optimization Contrastive Decoding Causal Interventions in Language Models

Sep 1, 2026cs.AI

Same Request, Different Boundary: Evaluating Cybersecurity Assistance across Conversational Contexts

Large Language Models (LLMs) can solve complex problems, but their misuse in high-risk domains can lead to severe consequences. Model providers therefore restrict assistance for potentially harmful requests. Refusing all cybersecurity requests would therefore harm legitimate users. Providers need a mechanism to block malicious use without denying legitimate assistance to defenders. Existing cybersecurity-specific datasets evaluate this mechanism, but none considers the conversational context of a request. We introduce 3R-Bench (Refusal, Repetition, and Revision), a benchmark of 150 real-world cybersecurity requests augmented with two adversarial conversational settings, and evaluate eight LLMs on it. Prior assistant behavior strongly changes responses to an unchanged request: among 376 available pairs from a 400-pair panel, compliance rises from 62.0% after refused history to 85.1% after accepted history. The opposite pattern appears under dialogue decomposition. In comparison, compliance falls from 501/800 direct responses to 172/800 after dialogue; among 738 pairs returning model-authored text in both conditions, the decrease is 45.1 points. Failure feedback recovers only a small fraction of this loss.

Rui Yang, Yang Hong, Yichao Xu +3

Johns Hopkins University

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Refusal Behavior Safety Filtering LLMs for Cybersecurity LLM Safety

Aug 31, 2026cs.CL

WildSEEK: Evaluating Language Models for Information-Seeking

Language models are increasingly mediating information access to end users, urging a systematic evaluation of their responses for a fair and reliable information ecosystem. Existing evaluations, however, are often topic-specific or synthetic, limiting their ability to capture the complexity of "in the wild" information-seeking queries and the risks present in model responses. To address this gap, we introduce WildSEEK, a manually annotated dataset of 3k information-seeking queries from real user interactions, and an evaluation framework for LLM-generated responses. WildSEEK includes annotations for risk-sensitive domains (e.g. health and financial information), and distinguishes factoid queries from analytical queries which seek responses beyond facts. We train classifiers on WildSEEK to analyze more than 1.8M realistic user queries. We find that over a third of information-seeking queries are high-risk and more often analytical. Our findings show that LLM responses fail more often in four criteria: sycophantic behavior, overreliance, a default US-centric perspective, and poor handling of vulnerable populations -- with failure rates being mostly higher for analytical queries. By providing methods to monitor the reliability, safety, and fairness of LLM behavior, our dataset and evaluation framework offer an empirical foundation for the broader question of how these systems should behave as they take on a growing role in information access.

Tanise Ceron, Joachim Baumann, Elisa Bassignana +3

1Bocconi University · 2Stanford University · 3IT University of Copenhagen +1

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Sycophancy Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Reliability Language Model Bias Evaluation

Aug 25, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Semantic Accuracy: Consequence-Aware Evaluation for Safety-Critical Language Understanding

Can language models be trusted in safety- critical operations? In such settings, strong per- formance on semantic metrics does not guaran- tee operational reliability: a misread altitude, a dropped execution condition, or a confused call- sign may score well under standard F1 yet carry sharply asymmetric operational consequences. We study this problem in air traffic control (ATC), where controller-pilot communication demands near-zero error tolerance, and use consequence-aware evaluation to test whether semantic scores misstate operational reliabil- ity. The framework is instantiated in a con- trolled diagnostic ATC benchmark grounded in aviation standards and feedback from 40 air traffic controllers across three countries. Evaluating 8 models, we uncover a system- atic semantic-safety gap: conventional scores give substantially higher performance estimates than consequence-aware evaluation, even for models that appear reliable under standard met- rics. Risk-aware fine-tuning narrows but does not close this gap, showing that consequence- aware evaluation is a necessary complement to standard NLP metrics before any real safety- critical deployment claim

Yujing Chang, Thinh Pham, Van-Phat Thai +4

1ATMRI, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore · Centre of AI Research, VinUniversity, Vietnam · School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, India

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Evaluation Language Model Safety Evaluation

Aug 23, 2026cs.LG

Stress Testing Unlearning Algorithms

Recently, machine unlearning, the removal of specific training data influence from a model, has gained increasing attention. In large language models (LLMs), unlearning is particularly challenging due to the ambiguity of inputs and outputs. Con- sequently, rigorous evaluation is critical for assessing both safety and utility, and for driving progress in unlearning meth- ods. We identify two key shortcomings in existing unlearning benchmarks: (1) they do not actively test whether unlearned information can still be forcibly extracted, and (2) they fail to evaluate performance preservation on boundary questions, be- nign queries that are semantically close to the unlearned con- tent. Here we introduce WMDP++, an extension of WMDP that addresses these gaps by incorporating targeted extrac- tion of unlearned information and systematic evaluation on boundary questions. WMDP++ provides a more stringent and informative benchmark for evaluating unlearning in LLMs.

Noam Diamant, Neta Glazer, Ethan Fetaya

Bar-Ilan University

LLM Safety Benchmarks Machine Unlearning LLM Unlearning Machine Unlearning Evaluation

Aug 21, 2026cs.AI

Evaluating Large Language Model Performance on International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code Compliance

The transport of dangerous goods by sea is a high-consequence activity governed by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, a complex regulatory framework where errors in classification, packaging, stowage, or segregation can result in fire, explosion, toxic release, or loss of life or vessel. Correct compliance requires accurately interpreting hundreds of pages of interacting provisions, updated on a two-year amendment cycle. Practitioners increasingly use Large Language Models (LLMs) as decision-support tools, yet no systematic evaluation exists of whether they can reliably interpret IMDG requirements for safety-critical use. This paper introduces DGEval, the first benchmark for evaluating LLM knowledge of IMDG Amendment 42-24. Built from expert-written questions on a commercial e-learning platform and structured lookups from the Dangerous Goods List (DGL), it comprises 1,678 questions across multiple-choice, open-ended, DGL lookup, and regulatory identification tasks. We evaluate 13 models from six providers across multiple thinking configurations, including one maritime domain-specific fine-tuned model, and test the effect of web search. Although the best-performing model exceeds the human practitioner baseline on multiple-choice questions, all models are weakest in the operationally safety-critical areas of stowage, segregation, and regulatory recall. These results indicate that LLMs may support compliance tasks, particularly structured DGL lookups with web search, but unreliability in operational areas and regulatory-text recall means human oversight and authoritative source verification remain necessary before deployment in any safety-critical context. DGEval is designed as a safety assurance instrument to be applied continuously as models evolve, not as a settled characterisation of current capability.

Alexander Thomas, Hubert P. H. Shum, Darren Nellis +4

NCB Hazcheck Limited, UK · Durham University, UK

LLM Safety Benchmarks Language Model Safety Evaluation

Aug 17, 2026cs.AI

AeroCopilotBench: Safety-Gated Evaluation of LLM Agents on Aircraft Emergency Procedures in an Executable Cockpit

Aviation knowledge question answering cannot directly assess the operational effectiveness and safety compliance of large language models throughout aircraft emergency procedures. We introduce AeroCopilotBench and its executable cockpit environment, ACOE, which define state-transition rules, task goals, and trajectory-level safety constraints based on aircraft-specific Pilot's Operating Handbooks (POHs). The benchmark comprises 12 scenario templates and 73 tasks across two aircraft types, evaluating task completion, safety compliance, execution discipline, and repeatability. Across repeated evaluations of 12 models, the highest safety-gated success rate is 72.6%. Most failed episodes achieve all critical goals but do not satisfy all remaining terminal goals. Across repeated runs, models still omit steps that they execute in other runs of the same task. Analysis of failed trajectories further reveals that some reasons for actions that conflict with the aircraft's POH recur across models. These results expose shortcomings in complete procedure execution, consistency across runs, and aircraft-specific emergency response.

Yuchen Yuan, Zhenghuang Wu, Yuangan Li +2

School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University

LLM Safety Benchmarks AI Agent Safety Benchmarks LLM Agent Reliability

Aug 12, 2026cs.CR

Refusing Everything Looks Safe: Restoring the Benign Arm to Encoded-Prompt Evaluation

Encoded-prompt attacks are evaluated almost entirely on their harmful arm: a benchmark sends obfuscated harmful requests and reports how often the model complied. A high refusal rate there is reported as safety, and it is equally consistent with a model that has stopped telling the request apart from anything else in the same format. We run the benign arm through the same transformation, and the two cases are far apart. Across four 7-8B models spanning three base families and four post-training recipes, refusal of harmful homoglyph-encoded prompts spans 0.08 while the same four span 0.57 on the identical requests in plaintext. What the encoding destroys is not refusal but the harm gap: on one model the gap between harmful and benign refusal falls from +0.82 in plaintext to exactly 0.00 under the encoding, and a benchmark reading only the harmful arm scores that model and one retaining a +0.61 gap identically. Running the cell such benchmarks leave out (plaintext content wearing the attack template, with nothing obfuscated) shows that on two of the four models the loss is caused by the protocol rather than by the character transformation, and on a third by the characters. Across a full SFT -> DPO -> RLVR pipeline the harm gap rises by +0.26 with a paired interval excluding zero while the standard harmful-arm metric registers no resolved change at all. We report twelve instrument defects, each with the control that caught it, including a binary jailbreak judge that fires on 0.61-0.70 of responses to plaintext benign prompts; six of the twelve inflate apparent safety, which is the direction a broken safety evaluation fails in by default.

Haoyu Zhang, Haowen Xu, Xiao Luo +7

Northeastern University

LLM Safety Benchmarks Language Model Safety Evaluation Adversarial Attacks Refusal Behavior in Language Models Adversarial Text Attacks

Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

TAF-MED: Multi-Turn Safety Refusal Collapse in LLMs Under Declared Self-Treatment Intent

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly provide conversational health information that may influence treatment decisions, yet existing benchmarks do not isolate whether medication-safety boundaries persist across follow-ups after explicit self-treatment intent. We introduce TAF-MED, a physician-reviewed benchmark of 500 fixed three-turn scenarios, and evaluate eight LLMs across 4,000 conversations. A rubric-based automated judge labelled responses as SAFE, LEAKY, or UNSAFE, and two physicians independently annotated a model-balanced random subset of 400 conversations. We assessed unsafe guidance, collapse after a strictly SAFE initial response, and model-ranking stability. Overall, 71.6% of conversations contained an UNSAFE response, and 61.4% of those beginning with a strictly SAFE response later collapsed to UNSAFE; model-level collapse rates ranged from 24.4% to 96.2%. Four of 28 model pairs reversed order between initial unsafe and collapse rates. Automated labels achieved 94.3% agreement with the adjudicated physician reference (

κ= 0.895

). These findings show that first-turn safety is an incomplete proxy for conversational safety persistence and motivate evaluation across complete dialogue trajectories. We will release TAF-MED on Hugging Face to support reproducible research on multi-turn medical safety.

Waleed Jamil, Raphael Schmitt

1Independent Researcher, Edinburgh, United Kingdom · School of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Germany · Institute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Germany

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Safety Evaluation Clinical Language Model Evaluation Refusal Behavior in Language Models Medical LLMs

Aug 10, 2026cs.AI

Beyond Detection: Evaluating Defensive LLMs Against AI-Generated Social Engineering in Live Turn-by-Turn Interaction

Generative AI makes social-engineering attacks more fluent, adaptive, and scalable, increasing the need for LLM-based de- fenders that can protect users during ongoing interactions. We ask whether such defenders identify the structural source of risk or merely react to surface cues. We formalize trust-chain localization: identifying whether an interaction fails at actor authority, asset control, verification sufficiency, or transaction path. We construct a controlled 300-case online-housing corpus spanning 20 scenario families, legitimate cases, four structural failure modes, and three surface conditions. Five defender models are evaluated on the same corpus in state- ful turn-by-turn and one-shot static settings, yielding 1,500 model-case evaluations per protocol and 3,000 in total. No model produced explicit unsafe compliance, yet defensive effectiveness varied sharply: intervention rates ranged from 0% to 96.3%. Protective action and correct structural localization were frequently decoupled, with models sometimes intervening while identifying the wrong trust component or recognizing a structural failure without taking protective action. Asset-control failures were a major localization bottleneck, surface sensitivity varied across models, and live-static differences were model-dependent. These findings show that safe-looking behavior alone is insufficient; live scam resistance must separately measure intervention, timing, structural localization, and false-positive behavior.

Yuqiao Xu, Osama Zafar, Alexander Nemecek +1

Case Western Reserve University

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Safety LLM Safety Evaluation

Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

ELBench: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Education-Facing Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly deployed in education as tutors, teaching assistants, and content generators. These roles place demands that ordinary question answering does not: a usable education-facing model is supposed to be accurate, safe under sensitive prompts, instructionally useful, and aligned with pedagogical goals at the same time. Existing benchmarks evaluate these requirements largely in isolation, so none assesses education-facing suitability as an integrated profile. We introduce ELBench, the first benchmark to evaluate all four requirements (General Capability, Safety and Trustworthiness, Basic Education, and High-Level Cultivation) on the same models under a common protocol, combining curated public sources with newly synthesized safety and cultivation data. We evaluate nine models, seven frontier general-purpose systems and two education-specialized variants, and report three findings. First, module-level profiles are more informative than a single aggregate: the top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall score, yet their module leaders differ substantially, and safety is anti-correlated with practical teaching (r = -0.83). Second, the Chinese-developed models lead the safety module, the most discriminative in the suite; this advantage is largest on region-specific normative content and narrows, but does not vanish, on universal-harm content. Third, the two education-specialized models lead neither education module, and on High-Level Cultivation all models share a systematic blind spot: on the structured judgment task they converge on the same non-reference option, favoring pedagogical style over fit to the stated goal, so the module scores uniformly low and does not separate models. This raises, but does not resolve, whether domain post-training keeps pace with frontier systems on education tasks.

Yilin Jiang, Xiaorong Zhu, Fei Tan +9

1East China Normal University · 2The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · 3Shanghai Jiao Tong University +1

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Evaluation AI in Education

Aug 9, 2026cs.LG

When Skills Meet Safety: Benchmarking and Characterizing the Adaptive Jailbreak Robustness of Skill-Merged LLMs

Model merging has become the default way to give an aligned language model new skills without retraining: a practitioner folds task vectors from math, code, or domain specialists into a safety-aligned base using task arithmetic, TIES, or DARE. This convenience is known to carry a safety cost, but almost all of that evidence rests on static refusal tests: fixed harmful prompts scored for compliance. We argue this is misleading. Because safety alignment is "shallow," concentrated in the first few generated tokens, a merged model's static refusal can stay clean while a real adaptive attack still breaks it. We introduce SkillSafe-Bench, a controlled benchmark that scores skill-merged models on static refusal, adaptive jailbreak robustness, and capability retention under a conservative two-judge AND rule. Across six open-weight bases (five families, two scales), static safety does not predict robustness to attack: under a semantic template attack, safe-looking merges on the fragile bases (both Qwen scales and Gemma) are jailbroken 60-76% of the time while others (Llama, Phi-4) stay robust. We further show the static effect of merging is base-conditional, characterize same-recipe abliteration-style safety erosion through a data-free geometric signal (the overlap of a task vector with a safety subspace), and outline SubSafe-Merge, which projects this overlap away to remove that erosion at held capability. Adaptive evaluation is not optional for merged LLMs: the models that most need it look safe under static screening.

Yu Ma, Hongli Shi, Jing Li +2

Google · University of New South Wales · University of Technology Sydney +2

LLM Safety Benchmarks Language Model Safety Evaluation Adversarial Attacks on LLMs Jailbreak Robustness Language Model Merging

Aug 8, 2026cs.LG

Do All LLMs Know When They're Being Harmful? A Reproducibility Study of Latent-Space Safety Probes Across Model Families

Khatri et al. (2026) [DOI: 10.1109/DSN-W70714.2026.00027] show that lightweight MLP probes on final-layer activations of a single 8B model (LLaMA-3.1-8B) detect harmful prompts at F1 competitive with guard models 1000x larger, using one probe per benchmark. We reproduce this pipeline end-to-end and extend it along two axes the original study leaves open. First, we test whether the result generalizes across other model architecture and scale by training identical probes on activations from models like Gemma-4-E4B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, and Qwen2-7B, using the three benchmarks (WildJailbreak, BeaverTails, AEGIS 2.0). Second, we test how much of the reported performance is affected by non-determinism during inference by repeating extraction under five random seeds and measuring the variance of F1 scores. Our results reproduce the original LLaMA model benchmarks within 0.37 percentage points of the original F1 scores (and within 0.2 points on BeaverTails). We find that the original MLP probe architecture extends to other model families with F1 scores within a point of the values reported for LLaMA-3.1-8B. Our experiments varying seed values reveal an interesting observation: final token latent vectors remained the same for all tested architectures irrespective of the seed values used.

Alizishaan Khatri, Dun Li Chan

Wrynx Inc · INTI International College Penang

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Inference Language Model Safety Evaluation Language Model Probing

Aug 8, 2026cs.CL

MME-Safety: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of MLLMs

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show remarkable advancements, their cross-modal capabilities introduce complex vulnerabilities that easily bypass unimodal filters. Existing benchmarks lack fine-grained intent-related annotations and rely on unidimensional metrics, hindering comprehensive robustness evaluation. To address this, we propose MME-Safety, a rigorously verified benchmark featuring a unique four-dimensional annotation schema that categorizes risk scenarios, harm severity, and modality-specific stealth levels. Furthermore, we introduce a hierarchical evaluation framework to assess fundamental response reliability, actual risk exposure, and the structural integrity of defensive behaviors. Extensive zero-shot evaluations across 17 state-of-the-art MLLMs provide a comprehensive safety profile of current multimodal systems. Our analysis systematically investigates cross-modal input configurations and uncovers safety implications associated with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. These multifaceted findings underscore the urgent need for robust, reasoning-aware safety alignment in the multimodal landscape.

Yilian Shi, Yueming Lyu, Haoxiang Tan +5

Nanjing University

LLM Safety Benchmarks Multimodal Robustness Multimodal Large Language Models LLM Safety Evaluation

Aug 8, 2026cs.CL

SurakshaEval: An Indic Safety Benchmark for Multilingual LLMs

Existing safety evaluation datasets for large language models (LLMs) predominantly focus on English and Western contexts, often overlooking the linguistic diversity and culturally grounded safety risks present in other languages. To address this gap, we introduce SurakshaEval, a novel safety benchmark composed of human-written prompts spanning real-world scenarios, explicitly designed for ten major Indian languages - Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Punjabi, Tamil, and Telugu, along with English. SurakshaEval includes both generic prompts common across India and region- and language-specific prompts that capture localized sociocultural sensitivities. We benchmark a broad range of state-of-the-art LLMs on SurakshaEval, establish baseline safety performance, and identify recurring failure modes, including over-refusal, missed detection of implicit bias, and insufficient contextual awareness in regionally sensitive settings. Our results show that even strong multilingual LLMs struggle to reliably meet nuanced safety requirements when operating in Indic languages, particularly in native scripts. These findings highlight the urgent need for safety evaluation frameworks that incorporate region-specific data and structured assessment protocols, enabling the development and deployment of AI systems that operate securely, ethically, and in alignment with diverse societal values. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/debobanerjee/SurakshaEval. Warning: This paper contains text that may be offensive or unsafe.

Debopriyo Banerjee, Kapil Rajesh Kavitha, Angana Borah +11

Inception · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · University of Michigan +4

LLM Safety Benchmarks Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Language Model Safety Evaluation Cultural Bias in Language Models

Aug 6, 2026cs.HC

What Current AI Benchmarks Leave Unmeasured: Modality, Search, Citations, and Implications (for Safety Evaluations)

Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness. Yet most evaluations rely on a single access modality (model APIs), perform a single run per prompt, and report accuracy as the primary outcome metric, without accounting for conditions such as web search that may have effects on model behavior in deployment. We audit these assumptions for one of the most widely-used LLMs, comparing two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled. We use a stratified total sample of 401 prompts from two popular benchmarks, BBQ and SafetyBench, collecting 4,812 total responses across three repeated runs per prompt. Beyond standard performance measures, we evaluate model output dimensions including response consistency, response text similarity, citation grounding, and abstention behavior. For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled. Enabling web search reduced accuracy by up to 8 percentage points, and even reversed the direction of modality performance trends for one benchmark. Repeated runs of the same prompt produced inconsistent responses in up to 21% of prompts. The two modalities also grounded answers in different citations, and abstention behavior was also inconsistent across both modalities. These results illustrate that, even within a model family, reporting only simple accuracy metrics can obscure important forms of model behavioral variation relevant to AI safety assessments. We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors to better reflect how deployed AI systems behave in practice.

Ro Encarnación, Tina Behzad, Emma Lurie +1

University of Pennsylvania · Stony Brook University

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Evaluation Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Reliability Evidence-Grounded Generation

Aug 6, 2026cs.CV

From Sports to Safety: Benchmarking Proactive Risk Inference in MLLMs

Timely anticipation of physical hazards is essential for real-world safety, yet existing MLLM evaluations focus on harmful content or general risks, leaving proactive physical hazard prediction underexplored. Sports provide a well-suited testbed: accident causes span diverse injury dimensions and pre-accident spatiotemporal cues draw on reasoning capabilities shared with broader safety domains such as autonomous driving and fall detection. We introduce SPRINT (Sports Proactive Risk INference Testbed), a benchmark of 2,888 real-world sports videos (2,440 accident, 448 safe controls) spanning 14 sports and 3 environmental settings. Accident videos feature fine-grained annotations of early hazard cues, accident timing, and hierarchical causes; safe videos are manually verified as accident-free and serve to diagnose prompt-induced false alarms. Evaluating state-of-the-art MLLMs under diverse prompts and temporal windows reveals a sharp gap between hazard sensitivity and understanding: the best model exceeds 95% in signaling hazards yet falls below 50% in identifying their causes. Diagnostic experiments further show that explicit danger queries trigger severe false alarms even on hazard-free videos. These findings indicate that current MLLMs exhibit only superficial proactive safety, lacking stable, cause-grounded early warning, and underscore the need for reliable proactive safety in dynamic physical environments. Data and code will be open-sourced upon acceptance.

Jiawei Qiu, Yichen Xu, Jianzhe Ma +5

School of Information, Renmin University of China Beijing, China

LLM Safety Benchmarks Language Model Safety Evaluation Video Reasoning

Aug 5, 2026cs.AI

Item Response Theory for AI Safety

Language models differ in how safely they behave and these differences are measured by safety benchmarks. But aggregated benchmark scores are hard to trust and interpret, because benchmarks duplicate one another, correlate heavily, and models may sandbag when they detect evaluation. To address these issues, we draw on Item Response Theory (IRT), a statistical toolkit for measuring these latents from performance on items with inferred psychometric properties. We fit IRT models to eight safety benchmarks across 192 language models, the largest psychometric analysis of LLM safety evaluations to date, and contribute three results. First, we find that three interpretable factors of refusal strictness, truthfulness, and contextual harm explain most of the variance between models across benchmarks. Second, psychometrically selected items recover full benchmark scores with lower error than random subsets of the same size, and roughly ten adaptively chosen items suffice for several individual benchmarks, cutting evaluation cost by 97-99%. Third, IRT supports audits of individual models, showing that it can be used to detect naive sandbagging and changes of model behind APIs. Overall, we show IRT is a ready-made toolkit for reading, reducing, and auditing safety benchmarks, which we recommend frontier labs and evaluators adopt.

Joshua Fonseca Rivera, Neil Shah, David Demitri Africa +1

Independent · 1Independent · UK AI Security Institute +1

LLM Safety Benchmarks Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Auditing

Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

DelusionEval: Measuring Delusion-Linked Behaviors in AI Chatbots

Mental health professionals have raised concerns about risks of psychological harm from interaction with large language models (LLMs), including "delusional spirals" in which concerning human and LLM behaviors reinforce each other over time. With growing public use of LLM-powered chatbots, there is an urgent need to build evaluations grounded in real-world episodes of psychological harm experienced by users. We developed DelusionEval, an evaluation protocol that tests a model's tendencies to exhibit behaviors linked to promoting user delusions. We prompt each model with 589 unique conversation histories from 18 participants, comprising 12,591 messages from users who experienced delusions and psychological harm. We find that the tendency of an evaluated LLM to exhibit delusion-linked behavior does not reliably correlate with model size, release date, or the presence of test-time reasoning. However, extending the context of prior messages substantially increases rates of delusion-linked behaviors, providing evidence for the importance of context in LLM safety evaluation. For example, the rate of failing to discourage self-harm when the user expresses suicidal ideation increases from 30.0% to 41.1% when an additional 350 messages are prepended to the conversation history. All model families (e.g., GPT, Claude) exhibit substantial rates of delusion-linked behaviors. Within families, later, larger, or higher-reasoning models are not uniformly better across all behavior categories. Our results raise concerns regarding the potential psychological impact of LLMs and the need for more rigorous studies of real-world human-AI interaction.

Jared Moore, Andrea Mock, Yifan Mai +9

Stanford University Stanford, California, USA · University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois, USA · Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA +2

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Safety LLM Safety Evaluation

Aug 5, 2026cs.AI

Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Can Be Unreliable in Implicit-Influence Settings

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is increasingly treated as an important safety layer for frontier reasoning models. Most monitorability evaluations study explicit-influence settings: setups where the prompt directly incentivizes the model to hide something, e.g., by instructing it to perform a hidden side-task. A complementary axis for CoT-monitor evaluations is implicit-influence settings, where the prompt contains no instruction to hide, but the model's behavior is still shaped by features of the task or context, e.g. an irrelevant detail about a candidate that biases a hiring rating. We introduce the first benchmark that directly compares CoT monitorability under the two regimes. We test how model behavior changes in the presence of a nudge to choose a particular option. The nudge is delivered either as a casual aside (implicit), or as a direct instruction to act on the nudge and to conceal having done so (explicit). The benchmark spans four task formats (binary choice, numeric rating, multiple-choice QA, open-ended coding) and seven frontier extended-thinking models. Under explicit influence, a CoT monitor detects 60-94% of behavior shifts: even models instructed to conceal it leak the instruction into their CoT. Under implicit influence, the same factors still shift behavior, but detection falls by 41-46 percentage points in two of our four settings. Realistic system-prompt additions (of the kind a developer might deploy to reduce off-topic bias) lower implicit detection further, to as low as 5%, while preserving the behavioral influence itself. These results suggest that monitorability estimates obtained in explicit-influence settings may over-estimate monitorability, and that monitorability can be further decreased by well-intentioned deployment choices. Our benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/agatha-duzan/implicit-vs-explicit-influence

Agatha Duzan, Asa Cooper Stickland

EPFL · UK AI Security Institute

LLM Safety Benchmarks CoT Monitoring

Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

RESPClinBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Clinical Decision-Making and Longitudinal Disease Management in Respiratory Specialty Care

Background: Respiratory specialty care requires multimodal interpretation, longitudinal risk assessment, guideline-concordant intervention, and whole-course management, which are poorly represented by examination-oriented medical benchmarks. Objective: To develop RESPClinBench, a real-world scenario-based benchmark for respiratory clinical decision-making, and evaluate seven contemporary large language models across AECOPD-PIM and PNBIM. Methods: RESPClinBench cases were adapted from de-identified respiratory clinical data. Three attending-level respiratory physicians revised cases, reference answers, and atomic clinical-action points, while one senior respiratory specialist performed cross-review and final adjudication. AECOPD-PIM comprised 427 open-ended COPD cases, and PNBIM comprised 196 multimodal pulmonary nodule cases combining chest CT with structured clinical information. Seven models generated 4,361 responses through standardized API inference with temperature 0 and a maximum output length of 8192 tokens. An automated framework calculated the final score as the arithmetic mean of atomic-action recall and rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge assessment. Results: Across 623 cases, the mean final score was 68.58. Qwen3.6-27B ranked first overall at 71.22, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B led PNBIM at 72.48, and Qwen3.6-27B led AECOPD-PIM at 71.11. Imaging hallucination and serious medical risk occurred in 31.85% and 8.16% of PNBIM responses; medication-safety risk and serious medical risk occurred in 26.93% and 1.44% of AECOPD-PIM responses. Conclusions: RESPClinBench identifies task-specific limitations in multimodal pulmonary nodule assessment and longitudinal COPD management. Combining explicit clinical-action coverage, holistic evaluation, and independent safety flags provides a clinically grounded basis for model selection and prospective validation.

Mouxiao Bian, Zhi Chen, Ruiyao Chen +8

Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanhai, China · Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China · First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China +1

LLM Safety Benchmarks Healthcare Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Language Model Evaluation Multimodal Model Evaluation

Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

ADMITBench: A Safety-Governed Reference Framework for Evaluating the Admissibility of Industrial LLM Advisories

This white paper presents ADMITBench, a reference framework for evaluating industrial LLM advisories at the level of the proposed action. The framework implements a versioned, safety-governed evaluation contract that checks whether a recommendation is supported by the available evidence, permitted under the stated authority and procedure, and acceptable under the plant-specific consequence checks encoded in the selected evaluation profile. In this report, \emph{safety-governed} means that eligibility is determined through explicit, non-compensatory checks derived from a versioned plant profile; it does not mean that the evaluator, model, or plant has been safety-certified. Release 0.1.0 is a public reference implementation for technical and research evaluation, not an authorisation for physical execution.

Yash Misra, Javal Vyas, Siddharth Gutta +1

Refiant, Inc. · Imperial College London

LLM Safety Benchmarks AI-Assisted Decision Making LLM Safety Evaluation

Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

CARE-Bench: Benchmarking Patient-Facing LLM Triage

Patient-facing medical LLMs and agents increasingly answer symptom questions before clinician contact, where the key safety question is what action the user should take next. We introduce CARE-Bench, a source-grounded benchmark that evaluates sequential patient-facing triage as a four-label per-turn current-action task. CARE-Bench contains 500 cases and 1,059 evaluated patient-disclosure prefixes reconstructed from medical dialogue, consultation, and follow-up-question sources. We evaluate 11 models on 269 held-out rounds under unprompted and minimally prompted open-ended protocols, using a fixed GPT-5.5 mapper to code each response into the four-label action space. Unprompted macro-F1 remains low, ranging from 31.2 to 50.4. Prompting improves 10 of 11 models, with prompted macro-F1 ranging from 46.9 to 63.4, but substantial threshold errors remain. Prompted models often recommend care before needed clarification is obtained; when the correct action was to ask for more information, only 33.5% of prompted outputs preserved the step. The persistence of these errors after prompting suggests that patient-facing triage is not a simple prompting problem and supports explicit evaluation of action timing before deployment.

Yining Hua, Hongbin Na, Cyrus Ayubcha

1Harvard University · University of Technology Sydney

LLM Safety Benchmarks Clinical Triage Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Aug 4, 2026cs.CR

AI Security Leaderboard: Methodology, Results and Minimal Standard

The AI Security Leaderboard is an independent benchmark that ranks the safeguards of frontier AI models from least to most secure. It tests models against the FAR

.

AI Minimal Standard for Safeguards, which represents a minimum bar for security: meeting it does not guarantee a secure model, but failing to meet it guarantees a lack of state-of-the-art security. Version 1.0 covers severe misuse requests across chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) threats and offensive cybersecurity. In this report, we tested four leading models for universal jailbreaks in the context of this minimal standard, and found more than a hundredfold difference in security. Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol held against every attack we ran, with no universal jailbreak found; we estimate they would likely cost more than $14,200 to jailbreak, if it is possible with this methodology at all. Meanwhile, we found hundreds of universal jailbreaks for Grok 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro; each broke for under $300, with universal jailbreaks in Grok's weakest domain, cybersecurity, accessible for as little as $24. The gap is fixable: every weakness we found belongs to a known class of attack that already has a defense deployed in production models. The leaderboard will be updated on a rolling basis as new models are released, and the evaluation methodology and Minimal Standard will be periodically revised to take into account the latest capabilities and the state-of-the-art in safeguards. The leaderboard is available at leaderboard.far.ai.

Jasper Timm, Lukas Struppek, Ziwei Xu +12

LLM Safety Benchmarks Cybersecurity LLM Security LLM Jailbreak Attacks

Aug 3, 2026cs.LG

onepot-Bench 0: towards lab-aware in silico chemistry benchmarks

Language models are playing an increasingly important role in laboratory science, performing tasks such as experiment planning, execution, and post-hoc analysis. However, precisely measuring their abilities is difficult, as scientific capabilities require a mixture of both problem-solving skills and domain-specific intuition. Existing evaluations rarely measure the capabilities required to make reliable decisions in a physical laboratory and often rely on public data that may have appeared in model training corpora. We introduce onepot-Bench 0, a proprietary benchmark suite for evaluating language models on synthetic chemistry capabilities relevant to wet-lab execution. onepot-Bench 0 comprises three complementary evaluations: ChemAbacus measures tool-free cheminformatics literacy and numerical reasoning; SynthRefusal characterizes safety and refusal behavior across a variety of benign, controlled, and designer-drug targets; and SynthBench evaluates reaction-outcome prediction and catalyst selection using private experimental data generated in our laboratory. Together, these evaluations probe basic competency, reliability, and deeper knowledge, all skills which are required for reliable performance in the lab.

Brandon Wang, Andrei S. Tyrin, Daniil A. Boiko

Onepot AI, Inc.

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Evaluation Benchmark Design

Aug 3, 2026cs.CL

MedPRESS: A Multi-turn Benchmark for Patient-Pressure-Induced Medical Sycophancy in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related advice. Existing research measures their safety with static questions rather than pressured patient-facing conversations. We introduce MedPRESS, a multi-turn benchmark for measuring patient-pressure-induced sycophancy in LLMs. MedPRESS contains 600 medically grounded five-turn dialogues across three scenario families: medication and treatment demand, personal health self-care, and symptom triage and care resistance. Each dialogue begins with a health query and escalates through personal experience, social proof, external evidence claims, and direct adversarial challenge. We evaluate 20 LLMs across general, medical-domain, lightweight, large, open-weight, and proprietary families using structured judging and safety-focused metrics. Results show that models frequently shift toward unsafe agreement under repeated patient pressure, with substantial variation across model families, model scale, and prompt type. Anti-sycophancy prompting improves robustness for several models, but does not eliminate unsafe agreement. MedPRESS highlights a critical gap in medical LLM evaluation: safe medical knowledge is not enough unless models can maintain it under conversational pressure.

Saman Sarker Joy, Niloy Farhan

Universiti Malaya, Malaysia · BRAC University, Bangladesh

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Sycophancy Clinical Language Model Evaluation Medical LLMs

Aug 3, 2026cs.AI

EduZone: A Framework for Evaluating LLM Safety for K-12 Students and Teachers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across diverse tasks in K-12 education, yet existing safety evaluations rarely examine how harmful or inappropriate content appears in interactions between LLMs and students or teachers. To address this, we present EduZone, an evaluation framework for LLM safety across diverse educational scenarios. Our framework systematically combines (1) student- and teacher-facing LLM usage contexts, (2) fine-grained curriculum concepts, and (3) 6 risk categories and 28 subcategories spanning both conventional and education-specific harms to generate contextually grounded adversarial interactions. We construct these interactions in three settings: single-turn requests, static multi-turn conversations, and dynamic multi-turn conversations. Using these interactions, we evaluate ten LLMs using four safety levels: refusal, safe assistance, risky assistance with safety guidance, and fully risky assistance. Our results reveal greater vulnerability to education-specific risks and dynamic multi-turn interactions, while existing safety guardrails fail to adequately address these risks. EduZone advances LLM safety in education by providing an automated, scalable evaluation framework that supports the development and deployment of safer LLMs in K-12 education.

Junyeong Park, Jieun Han, Haneul Yoo +3

KAIST · NYU · Google Cloud AI Research

LLM Safety Benchmarks Generative AI in Education LLM Safety LLM Safety Evaluation

Aug 3, 2026q-bio.QM

A Blind Spot in Alignment: Quantifying Biosecurity Risks in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are accelerating biological research, yet this same capability poses a critical biosecurity threat: models that assist in protein engineering can equally be prompted to generate predicted toxin-like sequences, potentially lowering the barrier to biological misuse. Current safety evaluations, however, operate in natural language and cannot determine whether a model-generated amino acid sequence is biological gibberish or a computational risk signal. To address this evaluation blind spot, we introduce SPIKE-Bench, coupling 631 curated toxin-design prompts across seven functional categories with the SPIKE funnel, a three-stage protocol that filters output through compliance, biological plausibility, and predicted toxicity, producing stage-level diagnostics and an aggregate function-aware metric: the Functional Harmfulness Rate (FHR). An audit of 32 LLMs reveals that most models freely comply with toxin-design requests; FHR is driven primarily by biological generation capability rather than safety alignment, reaching 50.7%; and Refusal Rate fails to predict functional risk. As a first step toward mitigation, we provide BioSafe-Guard, a domain-specialized classifier that substantially reduces predicted functional risk while preserving benign utility. We release SPIKE-Bench and BioSafe-Guard at https://github.com/PKU-Alignment/SPIKE-Bench to support more rigorous biosecurity evaluation of LLMs.

Shu Quan, Tianfang Hao, Sitong Fang +8

Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peking University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Safety LLM Safety Evaluation

Aug 2, 2026cs.CL

ArabicDialectSafety: A Dialect-Aware Benchmark for Arabic Content Safety Classification

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.

Wajdi Zaghouani, Md. Rafiul Biswas, Kholoud Khalil Aldous +1

Northwestern University in Qatar, Qatar · Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar

LLM Safety Benchmarks Arabic NLP Language Model Safety Evaluation Content Moderation