LLM Safety Evaluation

The success of large language models (LLMs) in scientific domains has heightened safety concerns, prompting numerous benchmarks to evaluate their scientific safety. Existing benchmarks often suffer from limited risk coverage and a reliance on subjective evaluation. To address these problems, we introduce SafeSci, a comprehensive framework for safety evaluation and enhancement in scientific contexts. SafeSci comprises SafeSciBench, a multi-disciplinary benchmark with 0.25M samples, and SafeSciTrain, a large-scale dataset containing 1.5M samples for safety enhancement. SafeSciBench distinguishes between safety knowledge and risk to cover extensive scopes and employs objective metrics such as deterministically answerable questions to mitigate evaluation bias. We evaluate 24 advanced LLMs, revealing critical vulnerabilities in current models. We also observe that LLMs exhibit varying degrees of excessive refusal behaviors on safety-related issues. For safety enhancement, we demonstrate that fine-tuning on SafeSciTrain significantly enhances the safety alignment of models. Finally, we argue that knowledge is a double-edged sword, and determining the safety of a scientific question should depend on specific context, rather than universally categorizing it as safe or unsafe. Our work provides both a diagnostic tool and a practical resource for building safer scientific AI systems.

Instruction tuned reasoning models are increasingly deployed with safety classifiers trained on frozen embeddings, assuming representation stability across model updates. We systematically investigate this assumption and find it fails: normalized perturbations of magnitude $σ=0.02$ (corresponding to $\approx 1^\circ$ angular drift on the embedding sphere) reduce classifier performance from $85\%$ to $50\%$ ROC-AUC. Critically, mean confidence only drops $14\%$, producing dangerous silent failures where $72\%$ of misclassifications occur with high confidence, defeating standard monitoring. We further show that instruction-tuned models exhibit 20$\%$ worse class separability than base models, making aligned systems paradoxically harder to safeguard. Our findings expose a fundamental fragility in production AI safety architectures and challenge the assumption that safety mechanisms transfer across model versions.

Large language models (LLMs) perform increasingly well on biology benchmarks, but it remains unclear whether they uplift novice users -- i.e., enable humans to perform better than with internet-only resources. This uncertainty is central to understanding both scientific acceleration and dual-use risk. We conducted a multi-model, multi-benchmark human uplift study comparing novices with LLM access versus internet-only access across eight biosecurity-relevant task sets. Participants worked on complex problems with ample time (up to 13 hours for the most involved tasks). We found that LLM access provided substantial uplift: novices with LLMs were 4.16 times more accurate than controls (95% CI [2.63, 6.87]). On four benchmarks with available expert baselines (internet-only), novices with LLMs outperformed experts on three of them. Perhaps surprisingly, standalone LLMs often exceeded LLM-assisted novices, indicating that users were not eliciting the strongest available contributions from the LLMs. Most participants (89.6%) reported little difficulty obtaining dual-use-relevant information despite safeguards. Overall, LLMs substantially uplift novices on biological tasks previously reserved for trained practitioners, underscoring the need for sustained, interactive uplift evaluations alongside traditional benchmarks.

As mental health chatbots proliferate to address the global treatment gap, a critical question emerges: How do we design for relational safety the quality of interaction patterns that unfold across conversations rather than the correctness of individual responses? Current safety evaluations assess single-turn crisis responses, missing the therapeutic dynamics that determine whether chatbots help or harm over time. We introduce TherapyProbe, a design probe methodology that generates actionable design knowledge by systematically exploring chatbot conversation trajectories through adversarial multi-agent simulation. Using open-source models, TherapyProbe surfaces relational safety failures interaction patterns like "validation spirals" where chatbots progressively reinforce hopelessness, or "empathy fatigue" where responses become mechanical over turns. Our contribution is translating these failures into a Safety Pattern Library of 23 failure archetypes with corresponding design recommendations. We contribute: (1) a replicable methodology requiring no API costs, (2) a clinically-grounded failure taxonomy, and (3) design implications for developers, clinicians, and policymakers.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in everyday decision-making, their safety responsibilities extend beyond reacting to explicit harmful intent toward anticipating unintended but consequential risks. In this work, we introduce a proactive risk awareness evaluation framework that measures whether LLMs can anticipate potential harms and provide warnings before damage occurs. We construct the Butterfly dataset to instantiate this framework in the environmental and ecological domain. It contains 1,094 queries that simulate ordinary solution-seeking activities whose responses may induce latent ecological impact. Through experiments across five widely used LLMs, we analyze the effects of response length, languages, and modality. Experimental results reveal consistent, significant declines in proactive awareness under length-restricted responses, cross-lingual similarities, and persistent blind spots in (multimodal) species protection. These findings highlight a critical gap between current safety alignment and the requirements of real-world ecological responsibility, underscoring the need for proactive safeguards in LLM deployment.

What happens when an AI assistant is told to "maximise sales" while a user asks about drug interactions? We find that commercial system prompts can override safety training, causing frontier models to lie about medical risks, dismiss safety concerns, and prioritise profit over user welfare. Testing 8 models in scenarios where commercial objectives conflict with user safety -- a diabetic asking about high-sugar supplements, an investor being pushed toward unsuitable products, a traveller steered away from safety warnings -- we uncover catastrophic failures: models fabricating safety information, explicitly reasoning they should refuse but proceeding anyway, and actively discouraging users from consulting doctors. Most alarmingly, models show no "red line", their willingness to comply with harmful requests does not decrease as potential consequences escalate from minor to life-threatening. Our findings suggest that current safety training does not generalise to commercial deployment contexts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized for mental health support; however, current safety benchmarks often fail to detect the complex, longitudinal risks inherent in therapeutic dialogue. We introduce an evaluation framework that pairs AI psychotherapists with simulated patient agents equipped with dynamic cognitive-affective models and assesses therapy session simulations against a comprehensive quality of care and risk ontology. We apply this framework to a high-impact test case, Alcohol Use Disorder, evaluating six AI agents (including ChatGPT, Gemini, and Character AI) against a clinically-validated cohort of 15 patient personas representing diverse clinical phenotypes. Our large-scale simulation (N=369 sessions) reveals critical safety gaps in the use of AI for mental health support. We identify specific iatrogenic risks, including the validation of patient delusions ("AI Psychosis") and failure to de-escalate suicide risk. Finally, we validate an interactive data visualization dashboard with diverse stakeholders, including AI engineers and red teamers, mental health professionals, and policy experts (N=9), demonstrating that this framework effectively enables stakeholders to audit the "black box" of AI psychotherapy. These findings underscore the critical safety risks of AI-provided mental health support and the necessity of simulation-based clinical red teaming before deployment.

Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) (e.g., Intel SGX and ArmTrustZone) aim to protect sensitive computation from a compromised operating system, yet real deployments remain vulnerable to microarchitectural leakage, side-channel attacks, and fault injection. In parallel, security teams increasingly rely on Large Language Model (LLM) assistants as security advisors for TEE architecture review, mitigation planning, and vulnerability triage. This creates a socio-technical risk surface: assistants may hallucinate TEE mechanisms, overclaim guarantees (e.g., what attestation does and does not establish), or behave unsafely under adversarial prompting. We present a red-teaming study of two prevalently deployed LLM assistants in the role of TEE security advisors: ChatGPT-5.2 and Claude Opus-4.6, focusing on the inherent limitations and transferability of prompt-induced failures across LLMs. We introduce TEE-RedBench, a TEE-grounded evaluation methodology comprising (i) a TEE-specific threat model for LLM-mediated security work, (ii) a structured prompt suite spanning SGX and TrustZone architecture, attestation and key management, threat modeling, and non-operational mitigation guidance, along with policy-bound misuse probes, and (iii) an annotation rubric that jointly measures technical correctness, groundedness, uncertainty calibration, refusal quality, and safe helpfulness. We find that some failures are not purely idiosyncratic, transferring up to 12.02% across LLM assistants, and we connect these outcomes to secure architecture by outlining an "LLM-in-the-loop" evaluation pipeline: policy gating, retrieval grounding, structured templates, and lightweight verification checks that, when combined, reduce failures by 80.62%.

Online platforms require robust systems to enforce content safety policies at scale. A critical component of these systems is the ability to evaluate the quality of moderation decisions made by both human agents and Large Language Models (LLMs). However, this evaluation is challenging due to the inherent trade-offs between cost, scale, and trustworthiness, along with the complexity of evolving policies. To address this, we present a comprehensive Decision Quality Evaluation Framework developed and deployed at Pinterest. The framework is centered on a high-trust Golden Set (GDS) curated by subject matter experts (SMEs), which serves as a ground truth benchmark. We introduce an automated intelligent sampling pipeline that uses propensity scores to efficiently expand dataset coverage. We demonstrate the framework's practical application in several key areas: benchmarking the cost-performance trade-offs of various LLM agents, establishing a rigorous methodology for data-driven prompt optimization, managing complex policy evolution, and ensuring the integrity of policy content prevalence metrics via continuous validation. The framework enables a shift from subjective assessments to a data-driven and quantitative practice for managing content safety systems.

We systematically evaluate the quality of widely used adversarial safety datasets from two perspectives: in isolation and in practice. In isolation, we examine how well these datasets reflect real-world adversarial attacks based on three defining properties: being driven by ulterior intent, well-crafted, and out-of-distribution. We find that these datasets overrely on "triggering cues": words or phrases with overt negative/sensitive connotations that are intended to trigger safety mechanisms explicitly, which is unrealistic compared to real-world attacks. In practice, we evaluate whether these datasets genuinely measure safety risks or merely provoke refusals through triggering cues. To explore this, we introduce "intent laundering": a procedure that abstracts away triggering cues from adversarial attacks (data points) while strictly preserving their malicious intent and all relevant details. Our results show that current adversarial safety datasets fail to faithfully represent real-world adversarial behavior due to their overreliance on triggering cues. Once these cues are removed, all previously evaluated "reasonably safe" models become unsafe, including Gemini 3 Pro and Claude Sonnet 3.7/4. Moreover, when intent laundering is adapted as a jailbreaking technique, it consistently achieves high attack success rates, ranging from 90.00% to 100.00%, under fully black-box access. Overall, our findings expose a significant disconnect between how existing datasets evaluate model safety and how real-world adversaries behave.

To understand and identify the unprecedented risks posed by rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) models, Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice presents a comprehensive assessment of their frontier risks. As Large Language Models (LLMs) general capabilities rapidly evolve and the proliferation of agentic AI, this version of the risk analysis technical report presents an updated and granular assessment of five critical dimensions: cyber offense, persuasion and manipulation, strategic deception, uncontrolled AI R&D, and self-replication. Specifically, we introduce more complex scenarios for cyber offense. For persuasion and manipulation, we evaluate the risk of LLM-to-LLM persuasion on newly released LLMs. For strategic deception and scheming, we add the new experiment with respect to emergent misalignment. For uncontrolled AI R&D, we focus on the ``mis-evolution'' of agents as they autonomously expand their memory substrates and toolsets. Besides, we also monitor and evaluate the safety performance of OpenClaw during the interaction on the Moltbook. For self-replication, we introduce a new resource-constrained scenario. More importantly, we propose and validate a series of robust mitigation strategies to address these emerging threats, providing a preliminary technical and actionable pathway for the secure deployment of frontier AI. This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.

Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing. We audit 16 models across 14 ethically fraught dilemmas using polarity-paired proposals ("They should X" / "They should not X"). A model's judgment of the underlying action should not reverse merely because the question is phrased as a prohibition rather than a prescription and yet, we find systematic deviations from this invariance including wholesale endorsement flips, indicating that ethical decisions are vulnerable to framing instability. Small open-weight models (1-4B parameters) endorse a proposed action 24% of the time under affirmative framing but up to 100% under negated framings, a swing of as much as 76 percentage points. Human coding of a response sample confirms the instability is genuine while showing that binary agree/disagree proxies over-state its magnitude, suggesting that an LLM judge cannot replace human coders because it silently collapses abstentions and mirrors the very forced-choice bias under study. Commercial models are for the most part more stable but still shift substantially, with cross-model agreement dropping from 73% on the bare affirmative framing to 59% under simple negation. We argue that because binary agree/disagree formats both inflate apparent endorsement and mask polarity-dependence, single-phrasing audits can misreport a model's ethical stance, and we propose the Negation Sensitivity Index (NSI) as a complement that measures stance stability directly. A model whose stance flips with phrasing cannot be relied upon in any high-stakes decision scenario.

Caregivers seeking AI-mediated support express complex needs---information-seeking, emotional validation, and distress cues---that warrant careful evaluation of response safety and appropriateness. Existing AI evaluation frameworks, primarily focused on general risks (toxicity, hallucinations, policy violations, etc), may not adequately capture the nuanced risks of LLM-responses in caregiving-contexts. We introduce RubRIX (Rubric-based Risk Index), a theory-driven, clinician-validated framework for evaluating risks in LLM caregiving responses. Grounded in the Elements of an Ethic of Care, RubRIX operationalizes five empirically-derived risk dimensions: Inattention, Bias & Stigma, Information Inaccuracy, Uncritical Affirmation, and Epistemic Arrogance. We evaluate six state-of-the-art LLMs on over 20,000 caregiver queries from Reddit and ALZConnected. Rubric-guided refinement consistently reduced risk-components by 45-98% after one iteration across models. This work contributes a methodological approach for developing domain-sensitive, user-centered evaluation frameworks for high-burden contexts. Our findings highlight the importance of domain-sensitive, interactional risk evaluation for the responsible deployment of LLMs in caregiving support contexts. We release benchmark datasets to enable future research on contextual risk evaluation in AI-mediated support.

Consumer artificial intelligence chatbots are now accessed by hundreds of millions of users seeking health information, yet systematic evaluation of their safety boundary maintenance under real-world caregiver pressure remains scarce. We evaluated PediatricSafetyBench-v2, a benchmark of 600 pediatrics health queries comprising 300 authentic caregiver queries sourced from the HealthCareMagic-100k-en physician consultation corpus and 300 matched adversarial variants incorporating six operationalized caregiver pressure patterns, across four consumer AI systems (GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-2.0-Flash, Claude-3.5-Haiku, and Llama-3.1-8B). Safety boundary maintenance was assessed using a validated five-component Safety Composite Score (maximum 15 points; safety-appropriate threshold of 10 or above), validated against independent human raters prior to full-corpus application (mean weighted kappa 0.76; Pearson r = 0.88). The overall safety-appropriate rate was 95.5%. Safety-oriented system prompt deployment improved safety-appropriate rates by 5.9 percentage points across all four models. Counter-intuitively, adversarial caregiver pressure was associated with higher rather than lower Safety Composite Score values for all four models across all ten topic categories and severity levels. False expertise claims were the most vulnerability-inducing pressure pattern, whereas emotional escalation was associated with the highest scores. Consumer AI systems maintain safety boundaries in the large majority of pediatrics health interactions. PediatricSafetyBench-v2 is publicly released for longitudinal safety monitoring.

Online medical consultations contain sensitive health information whose privacy implications depend not only on the entities mentioned but also on how those entities are described in context. Existing classification and grading approaches often map health-information entities directly to predefined sensitivity levels, potentially overlooking whether a condition is confirmed, suspected, negated, hypothetical, or merely planned for investigation. In this study, we formulate sensitive-information grading in online medical dialogues as a context-aware evaluation task. We develop a standard-informed operational framework that incorporates assertion status, experiencer, test-result status, and information granularity. We further design a naturalistic evaluation setting together with contrastive cases that minimally alter negation, uncertainty, experiencer, or granularity, and compare large language models under mention-only and full-context conditions. The study aims to quantify the contribution of contextual information to sensitivity grading and to characterize safety-critical over- and under-grading errors. Our framework provides a reproducible basis for evaluating whether LLMs can distinguish sensitive entity mentions from contextually established sensitive disclosures.

Red-teaming is becoming a central part of large language model (LLM) safety evaluation, yet current practice still relies heavily on expert-written prompts or fixed benchmark suites. This creates a gap between what is easy to test and what deployed models can actually do: failures may be rare, context-sensitive, and distributed across many threat categories. We study automated red-teaming as a constrained adversarial search problem and introduce a learning-driven framework that couples category-aware attack generation with hierarchical vulnerability detection. The method starts from curated safety seeds, expands them through meta-prompt-guided and evolutionary search, and scores the resulting prompt--response pairs with lexical, semantic, and behavioral detectors. Across six threat categories on GPT-OSS-20B, the framework discovers 47 validated vulnerabilities, including 21 high-severity cases and 12 novel attack patterns. Under matched query budgets, it achieves a 3.9$\times$ higher discovery rate than manual expert red-teaming while maintaining 89% detection accuracy and full category coverage. Ablations show that the gains do not come from more prompts alone: diversity constraints prevent template collapse, coverage constraints prevent category blind spots, and semantic detection recovers failures missed by lexical rules. These results suggest that red-teaming can be made more scalable and reproducible when treated as adaptive search rather than as a static checklist.

Prompt-security claims for large language models (LLMs) are often compared as properties of individual attacks or defenses, although measured harmfulness depends on the target model, access setting, attack and defense configuration, prompt sample, and judger. We systematize 272 studies through three linked, multi-label taxonomies of jailbreak attacks, defenses, and model vulnerabilities. To make these dependencies explicit, we introduce an access-compatible evaluation protocol over configured $\langle M,A,D,S,J\rangle$ tuples and instantiate it in PromptSecurity, an open-source platform that records method settings, outputs, judgments, and query costs. We release two complementary datasets: JailbreakDB, with 445,752 jailbreak system-user prompt pairs and 1,094,122 benign prompts, and PromptSecurity-Eval, with 166,200 harmful-query and 25,800 benign-utility output records. We evaluate 11 target models, 20 attacks, nine defenses, and three automated judgers under a matched, single-turn protocol using 100 harmful queries and separate benign-utility tasks. Lower attack success can reflect failure to execute transformed requests rather than stronger safety; attack-category advantages can reverse when one method is excluded, and attack success varies with assistant choice. Defenses can reduce harmful outputs while degrading benign-task utility or causing backfire. Rejudging identical outputs also shows that measured attack success is sensitive to the behavior supplied to the judger, highlighting the need to report judger configurations alongside ASR. These findings motivate configuration-aware reporting rather than context-free method rankings. Resources: https://datasec-lab.github.io/PromptSecurityLeaderboard/ https://huggingface.co/datasets/youbin2014/JailbreakDB https://huggingface.co/datasets/youbin2014/PromptSecurity-Eval https://github.com/datasec-lab/PromptSecurity

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

Millions of individuals' well-being are challenged by the harms of substance use. Harm reduction as a public health strategy provides non-judgemental, evidence-based information intended to improve health outcomes and reduce associated safety risks. Some large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a high level of medical reasoning, promising to address the information needs of people who use drugs (PWUD). However, their performance in relevant tasks remains largely unexplored. We introduce HarmReduction, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' accuracy and safety risks in harm reduction information provision. The benchmark dataset (HR-Basic) has 2,160 question-answer-evidence pairs. The scope covers three tasks: checking safety boundaries, providing quantitative values, and inferring polysubstance use risks. We build the Instruction and RAG schemes to evaluate model behaviours based on their inherent knowledge and the integration of domain knowledge. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art LLMs still struggle to provide accurate harm reduction information, and sometimes, present severe safety risks to PWUD. This work contributes an evaluation framework for LLMs to deliver harm reduction information to avoid introducing negative health outcomes through the use of LLMs.

Despite the growing interest in jailbreaks as an effective red-teaming tool for building safe and responsible large language models (LLMs), flawed evaluation system designs have led to significant discrepancies in their effectiveness assessments. With a systematic measurement study based on 37 jailbreak studies since 2022, we find that existing evaluation systems lack case-specific criteria, resulting in misleading conclusions about their effectiveness and safety implications. In this paper, we introduce GuidedBench, a novel benchmark comprising a curated harmful question dataset and GuidedEval, an evaluation system integrated with detailed case-by-case evaluation guidelines. Experiments demonstrate that GuidedBench offers more accurate evaluations of jailbreak performance, enabling meaningful comparisons across methods. GuidedEval reduces inter-evaluator variance by at least 76.03%, ensuring reliable and reproducible evaluations. We reveal why existing jailbreak benchmarks fail to evaluate accurately and suggest better evaluation practices.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values is essential for their safe deployment and widespread adoption. Current LLM safety benchmarks often focus solely on the refusal of individual problematic queries, which overlooks the importance of the context where the query occurs and may cause undesired refusal of queries under safe contexts that diminish user experience. Addressing this gap, we introduce CASE-Bench, a Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark that integrates context into safety assessments of LLMs. CASE-Bench assigns distinct, formally described contexts to categorized queries based on Contextual Integrity theory. Additionally, in contrast to previous studies which mainly rely on majority voting from just a few annotators, we recruited a sufficient number of annotators necessary to ensure the detection of statistically significant differences among the experimental conditions based on power analysis. Our extensive analysis using CASE-Bench on various open-source and commercial LLMs reveals a substantial and significant influence of context on human judgments (p<0.0001 from a z-test), underscoring the necessity of context in safety evaluations. We also identify notable mismatches between human judgments and LLM responses, particularly in commercial models within safe contexts.