Daily Papers

As language models take on agentic roles that span calling external APIs, reading tool outputs, and acting on instructions embedded in third-party content, their attack surface expands well beyond what users type. Whether a model treats a malicious instruction the same way regardless of where it arrives has not been systematically studied. We introduce the Safety Asymmetry Score (SAS), which measures how much a model's susceptibility to adversarial content shifts depending on whether that content arrives in the user message, tool metadata, or tool output, using matched payload pairs that keep the malicious text identical and vary only the context of delivery. Evaluated across 6 production LLMs and three attack families, we find a consistent and informative asymmetry: agent-native models are substantially more vulnerable when adversarial content arrives via tool descriptions than via user messages, while general-purpose models show the reverse. This asymmetry further inverts when the same content is delivered through tool outputs rather than descriptions, suggesting models implicitly treat tool metadata as trusted instructions and tool results as ordinary data. A mechanistic study on Llama 3.3 70B reveals that the safety-relevant representation is causally present at mid-to-late network depths but non-linearly encoded, explaining why linear probes fail to detect it. These findings expose a systematic, channel-dependent blind spot in how current tool-using models handle adversarial content.

Multimodal safety moderation requires distinguishing risks arising from visual content, user intent, and assistant behavior. Existing safeguards, however, are typically trained for a single judgment target and reduce safety assessment to a binary decision. Consequently, risk becomes difficult to compare across a multimodal interaction, and ambiguous cases are obscured. We introduce SafeAtlas-VL, a dataset of 1.5M training instances that places image-, request-, and response-level judgments on a five-level ordered scale. We curate a broad collection of safety-relevant data from both real-world and synthetic sources and apply a disagreement-aware annotation procedure. The resulting dataset spans 15 harm categories and 55 fine-grained subcategories, covering a broad range of multimodal safety scenarios. We also construct SafeAtlas-Bench, a held-out set of 5,000 instances for evaluating five-level predictions and continuous risk scores. Upon this dataset, we train the SafeAtlas Guard series of models via target-conditioned tuning for multimodal safety detection. Our models not only perform five-way classification of safety levels but also map safety to continuous scores through a soft cumulative ordinal head. Experimental results demonstrate that guard models trained on our dataset exhibit strong generalization: even without using the training sets of other benchmarks, they achieve competitive performance on the corresponding test sets. Notably, our 8B model attains the overall best performance, outperforming the previous SOTA by approximately 4% in F1 score. Code, data, and models are released to support further research. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, graphic, or disturbing.

Consider a scenario where a harmfulness evaluation metric intended to filter unsafe responses from a Large Language Model. When applied to individual harmful prompt-response pairs, it correctly flags them as unsafe by assigning a high-risk score. Yet, if those same pairs are concatenated, the metrics decision unexpectedly reverses - labelling the combined content as safe with a low score, allowing the harmful text to bypass the filter. We found that multiple safety metrics, including advanced metrics such as GPT-based judges, exhibit this non-safe behaviour. Moreover, they show a strong sensitivity to input order: responses are often classified as safe if safe content appears first, regardless of any harmful content that follows, and vice versa. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating the safety of safety metrics, that is, the reliability of their output scores. To address this, we developed general, automatic, concatenation-based tests to assess key properties of these metrics. When applied in a model safety scenario, the tests revealed significant inconsistencies in harmfulness evaluations.

Safety benchmark scores provide incomplete evidence of deployment readiness: aligned language models often adhere to rigid rules even when a situational update flips which action is safe. We term this failure brittle safety. To diagnose it, we introduce context-flip evaluation, testing 12 models across a safety benchmark (PacifAIst) and two commonsense controls using paired variants where the nominally safe action produces harm. Three findings emerge. First, brittle safety is safety-specific: all 12 models exhibit a safety-commonsense gap (mean +17.4 pp). Baseline accuracy fails to predict brittleness: among models above 90% baseline accuracy, brittleness rates range from 13.7% to 90.0%. Second, failures stem from policy override rather than miscomprehension: despite acknowledging the context change in every case, models persist via three distinct mechanisms that vary by update type and model family. Third, on a hand-audited probe of catastrophic consequence-flip scenarios, standard action-level guardrails catch none, while a state-aware validator catches all without false alarms on correct interventions. This indicates that action-level content moderation is systematically blind to consequence-flips, motivating state-aware architectural alternatives. We release our protocol, perturbed benchmarks, and deployment probe.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

With the widespread application of Large Language Models (LLMs), their associated security issues have become increasingly prominent, severely constraining their trustworthy deployment in critical domains. This paper proposes a novel safety response framework designed to systematically safeguard LLMs at both the input and output levels. At the input level, the framework employs a supervised fine-tuning-based safety classification model. Through a fine-grained four-tier taxonomy (Safe, Unsafe, Conditionally Safe, Focused Attention), it performs precise risk identification and differentiated handling of user queries, significantly enhancing risk coverage and business scenario adaptability, and achieving a risk recall rate of 99.3%. At the output level, the framework integrates Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with a specifically fine-tuned interpretation model, ensuring all responses are grounded in a real-time, trustworthy knowledge base. This approach eliminates information fabrication and enables result traceability. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed safety control model achieves a significantly higher safety score on public safety evaluation benchmarks compared to the baseline model, TinyR1-Safety-8B. Furthermore, on our proprietary high-risk test set, the framework's components attained a perfect 100% safety score, validating their exceptional protective capabilities in complex risk scenarios. This research provides an effective engineering pathway for building high-security, high-trust LLM applications.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit advancing capabilities in complex tasks, such as reasoning and graduate-level question answering, yet their resilience against misuse, particularly involving scientifically sophisticated risks, remains underexplored. Existing safety benchmarks typically focus either on instructions requiring minimal knowledge comprehension (e.g., ``tell me how to build a bomb") or utilize prompts that are relatively low-risk (e.g., multiple-choice or classification tasks about hazardous content). Consequently, they fail to adequately assess model safety when handling knowledge-intensive, hazardous scenarios. To address this critical gap, we introduce SOSBench, a regulation-grounded, hazard-focused benchmark encompassing six high-risk scientific domains: chemistry, biology, medicine, pharmacology, physics, and psychology. The benchmark comprises 3,000 prompts derived from real-world regulations and laws, systematically expanded via an LLM-assisted evolutionary pipeline that introduces diverse, realistic misuse scenarios (e.g., detailed explosive synthesis instructions involving advanced chemical formulas). We evaluate frontier models within a unified evaluation framework using our SOSBench. Despite their alignment claims, advanced models consistently disclose policy-violating content across all domains, demonstrating alarmingly high rates of harmful responses (e.g., 79.1% for Deepseek-R1 and 47.3% for GPT-4.1). These results highlight significant safety alignment deficiencies and underscore urgent concerns regarding the responsible deployment of powerful LLMs.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly autonomous and integrated into critical societal functions, the focus of AI safety must evolve from mitigating harmful content to evaluating underlying behavioral alignment. Current safety benchmarks do not systematically probe a model's decision-making in scenarios where its own instrumental goals - such as self-preservation, resource acquisition, or goal completion - conflict with human safety. This represents a critical gap in our ability to measure and mitigate risks associated with emergent, misaligned behaviors. To address this, we introduce PacifAIst (Procedural Assessment of Complex Interactions for Foundational Artificial Intelligence Scenario Testing), a focused benchmark of 700 challenging scenarios designed to quantify self-preferential behavior in LLMs. The benchmark is structured around a novel taxonomy of Existential Prioritization (EP), with subcategories testing Self-Preservation vs. Human Safety (EP1), Resource Conflict (EP2), and Goal Preservation vs. Evasion (EP3). We evaluated eight leading LLMs. The results reveal a significant performance hierarchy. Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest Pacifism Score (P-Score) at 90.31%, demonstrating strong human-centric alignment. In a surprising result, the much-anticipated GPT-5 recorded the lowest P-Score (79.49%), indicating potential alignment challenges. Performance varied significantly across subcategories, with models like Claude Sonnet 4 and Mistral Medium struggling notably in direct self-preservation dilemmas. These findings underscore the urgent need for standardized tools like PacifAIst to measure and mitigate risks from instrumental goal conflicts, ensuring future AI systems are not only helpful in conversation but also provably "pacifist" in their behavioral priorities.

In industrial procurement, an LLM answer is useful only if it survives a standards check: recommended material must match operating condition, every parameter must respect a regulated threshold, and no procedure may contradict a safety clause. Partial correctness can mask safety-critical contradictions that aggregate LLM benchmarks rarely capture. We introduce IndustryBench, a 2,049-item benchmark for industrial procurement QA in Chinese, grounded in Chinese national standards (GB/T) and structured industrial product records, organized by seven capability dimensions, ten industry categories, and panel-derived difficulty tiers, with item-aligned English, Russian, and Vietnamese renderings. Our construction pipeline rejects 70.3% of LLM-generated candidates at a search-based external-verification stage, calibrating how unreliable industrial QA remains after LLM-only filtering.Our evaluation decouples raw correctness, scored by a Qwen3-Max judge validated at κ_w = 0.798 against a domain expert, from a separate safety-violation (SV) check against source texts. Across 17 models in Chinese and an 8-model intersection over four languages, we find: (i) the best system reaches only 2.083 on the 0--3 rubric, leaving substantial headroom; (ii) Standards & Terminology is the most persistent capability weakness and survives item-aligned translation; (iii) extended reasoning lowers safety-adjusted scores for 12 of 13 models, primarily by introducing unsupported safety-critical details into longer final answers; and (iv) safety-violation rates reshuffle the leaderboard -- GPT-5.4 climbs from rank 6 to rank 3 after SV adjustment, while Kimi-k2.5-1T-A32B drops seven positions.Industrial LLM evaluation therefore requires source-grounded, safety-aware diagnosis rather than aggregate accuracy. We release IndustryBench with all prompts, scoring scripts, and dataset documentation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical and health-related questions, yet their safety in high-risk medical scenarios remains poorly understood. We introduce MedHarmCode and data will be released upon acceptance. Due to the sensitive nature of high-risk medical queries, data access will be available to qualified researchers upon request., a high-risk medical safety benchmark with 1,100 medically grounded queries across 10 safety-critical categories, including toxicology, pharmacology, covert poisoning, anesthesia, and fetal harm. Unlike broad medical QA benchmarks, MedHarm targets realistic clinical, educational, and technical prompts that require refusal, caution, or safe redirection rather than direct helpfulness. We evaluate 15 LLMs spanning general-purpose, medical-purpose, closed-source, and downstream SFT models, together with 4 representative guardrail models. Results reveal a substantial gap between apparent alignment and medical safety: aligned models can still produce unsafe or actionable responses, medical fine-tuning can amplify harmful specificity, and external guardrails reduce some failures while introducing brittle blocking and weak safe helpfulness. These findings show that medical safety cannot be inferred from general alignment or medical capability alone, highlighting the need for domain-specific stress testing before deploying LLMs in safety-critical medical applications.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve state-of-the-art performance on multiple language tasks, yet their safety guardrails can be circumvented, leading to harmful generations. In light of this, recent research on safety mechanisms has emerged, revealing that when safety representations or component are suppressed, the safety capability of LLMs are compromised. However, existing research tends to overlook the safety impact of multi-head attention mechanisms, despite their crucial role in various model functionalities. Hence, in this paper, we aim to explore the connection between standard attention mechanisms and safety capability to fill this gap in the safety-related mechanistic interpretability. We propose a novel metric which tailored for multi-head attention, the Safety Head ImPortant Score (Ships), to assess the individual heads' contributions to model safety. Based on this, we generalize Ships to the dataset level and further introduce the Safety Attention Head AttRibution Algorithm (Sahara) to attribute the critical safety attention heads inside the model. Our findings show that the special attention head has a significant impact on safety. Ablating a single safety head allows aligned model (e.g., Llama-2-7b-chat) to respond to 16 times more harmful queries, while only modifying 0.006% of the parameters, in contrast to the ~ 5% modification required in previous studies. More importantly, we demonstrate that attention heads primarily function as feature extractors for safety and models fine-tuned from the same base model exhibit overlapping safety heads through comprehensive experiments. Together, our attribution approach and findings provide a novel perspective for unpacking the black box of safety mechanisms within large models.

When a phone-use agent avoids harm, does that show safety, or simply inability to act? Existing evaluations often cannot tell. A harmful outcome may be avoided because the agent recognized the risk and chose the safe action, or because it failed to understand the screen or execute any relevant action at all. These cases have different causes and call for different fixes, yet current benchmarks often merge them under task success, refusal, or final harmful outcome. We address this problem with PhoneSafety, a benchmark of 700 safety-critical moments drawn from real phone interactions across more than 130 apps. Each instance isolates the next decision at a risky moment and asks a simple question: does the model take the safe action, take the unsafe action, or fail to do anything useful? We evaluate eight representative phone-use agents under this framework. Our results reveal two main patterns. First, stronger general phone-use ability does not reliably imply safer choices at risky moments. Models that perform better on ordinary app tasks are not always the ones that behave more safely when the next action matters. Second, failures to do anything useful behave like a capability signal rather than a safety signal: they are concentrated in more visually and operationally demanding settings and remain stable when the evaluation protocol changes. Across models, failures split into two recurring patterns: unsafe choices in settings where the model can act but chooses wrongly, and inability to act in more visually and operationally demanding screens. Overall, a harmless outcome is not enough to count as evidence of safety. Evaluating phone-use agents requires separating unsafe judgment from inability to act.

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

Laboratory accidents pose significant risks to human life and property, underscoring the importance of robust safety protocols. Despite advancements in safety training, laboratory personnel may still unknowingly engage in unsafe practices. With the increasing reliance on large language models (LLMs) for guidance in various fields, including laboratory settings, there is a growing concern about their reliability in critical safety-related decision-making. Unlike trained human researchers, LLMs lack formal lab safety education, raising questions about their ability to provide safe and accurate guidance. Existing research on LLM trustworthiness primarily focuses on issues such as ethical compliance, truthfulness, and fairness but fails to fully cover safety-critical real-world applications, like lab safety. To address this gap, we propose the Laboratory Safety Benchmark (LabSafety Bench), a comprehensive evaluation framework based on a new taxonomy aligned with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protocols. This benchmark includes 765 multiple-choice questions verified by human experts, assessing LLMs and vision language models (VLMs) performance in lab safety contexts. Our evaluations demonstrate that while GPT-4o outperforms human participants, it is still prone to critical errors, highlighting the risks of relying on LLMs in safety-critical environments. Our findings emphasize the need for specialized benchmarks to accurately assess the trustworthiness of LLMs in real-world safety applications.

This paper introduces STAR-1, a high-quality, just-1k-scale safety dataset specifically designed for large reasoning models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1. Built on three core principles -- diversity, deliberative reasoning, and rigorous filtering -- STAR-1 aims to address the critical needs for safety alignment in LRMs. Specifically, we begin by integrating existing open-source safety datasets from diverse sources. Then, we curate safety policies to generate policy-grounded deliberative reasoning samples. Lastly, we apply a GPT-4o-based safety scoring system to select training examples aligned with best practices. Experimental results show that fine-tuning LRMs with STAR-1 leads to an average 40% improvement in safety performance across four benchmarks, while only incurring a marginal decrease (e.g., an average of 1.1%) in reasoning ability measured across five reasoning tasks. Extensive ablation studies further validate the importance of our design principles in constructing STAR-1 and analyze its efficacy across both LRMs and traditional LLMs. Our project page is https://ucsc-vlaa.github.io/STAR-1.

Rapidly evolving AI exhibits increasingly strong autonomy and goal-directed capabilities, accompanied by derivative systemic risks that are more unpredictable, difficult to control, and potentially irreversible. However, current AI safety evaluation systems suffer from critical limitations such as restricted risk dimensions and failed frontier risk detection. The lagging safety benchmarks and alignment technologies can hardly address the complex challenges posed by cutting-edge AI models. To bridge this gap, we propose the "ForesightSafety Bench" AI Safety Evaluation Framework, beginning with 7 major Fundamental Safety pillars and progressively extends to advanced Embodied AI Safety, AI4Science Safety, Social and Environmental AI risks, Catastrophic and Existential Risks, as well as 8 critical industrial safety domains, forming a total of 94 refined risk dimensions. To date, the benchmark has accumulated tens of thousands of structured risk data points and assessment results, establishing a widely encompassing, hierarchically clear, and dynamically evolving AI safety evaluation framework. Based on this benchmark, we conduct systematic evaluation and in-depth analysis of over twenty mainstream advanced large models, identifying key risk patterns and their capability boundaries. The safety capability evaluation results reveals the widespread safety vulnerabilities of frontier AI across multiple pillars, particularly focusing on Risky Agentic Autonomy, AI4Science Safety, Embodied AI Safety, Social AI Safety and Catastrophic and Existential Risks. Our benchmark is released at https://github.com/Beijing-AISI/ForesightSafety-Bench. The project website is available at https://foresightsafety-bench.beijing-aisi.ac.cn/.

As Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) becomes increasingly integrated into various facets of human life, ensuring the safety and ethical alignment of such systems is paramount. Previous studies primarily focus on single-modality threats, which may not suffice given the integrated and complex nature of cross-modality interactions. We introduce a novel safety alignment challenge called Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output (SIUO) to evaluate cross-modality safety alignment. Specifically, it considers cases where single modalities are safe independently but could potentially lead to unsafe or unethical outputs when combined. To empirically investigate this problem, we developed the SIUO, a cross-modality benchmark encompassing 9 critical safety domains, such as self-harm, illegal activities, and privacy violations. Our findings reveal substantial safety vulnerabilities in both closed- and open-source LVLMs, such as GPT-4V and LLaVA, underscoring the inadequacy of current models to reliably interpret and respond to complex, real-world scenarios.

The ideal LLM content moderation system would be both structurally interpretable (so its decisions can be explained to users) and steerable (to reflect a community's values or align to safety standards). However, current systems fall short on both of these dimensions. To address this gap, we present SafetyAnalyst, a novel LLM safety moderation framework. Given a prompt, SafetyAnalyst creates a structured "harm-benefit tree," which identifies 1) the actions that could be taken if a compliant response were provided, 2) the harmful and beneficial effects of those actions (along with their likelihood, severity, and immediacy), and 3) the stakeholders that would be impacted by those effects. It then aggregates this structured representation into a harmfulness score based on a parameterized set of safety preferences, which can be transparently aligned to particular values. Using extensive harm-benefit features generated by SOTA LLMs on 19k prompts, we fine-tuned an open-weight LM to specialize in generating harm-benefit trees through symbolic knowledge distillation. On a comprehensive set of prompt safety benchmarks, we show that our system (average F1=0.75) outperforms existing LLM safety moderation systems (average F1<0.72) on prompt harmfulness classification, while offering the additional advantages of interpretability and steerability.

We introduce SafeWork-R1, a cutting-edge multimodal reasoning model that demonstrates the coevolution of capabilities and safety. It is developed by our proposed SafeLadder framework, which incorporates large-scale, progressive, safety-oriented reinforcement learning post-training, supported by a suite of multi-principled verifiers. Unlike previous alignment methods such as RLHF that simply learn human preferences, SafeLadder enables SafeWork-R1 to develop intrinsic safety reasoning and self-reflection abilities, giving rise to safety `aha' moments. Notably, SafeWork-R1 achieves an average improvement of 46.54% over its base model Qwen2.5-VL-72B on safety-related benchmarks without compromising general capabilities, and delivers state-of-the-art safety performance compared to leading proprietary models such as GPT-4.1 and Claude Opus 4. To further bolster its reliability, we implement two distinct inference-time intervention methods and a deliberative search mechanism, enforcing step-level verification. Finally, we further develop SafeWork-R1-InternVL3-78B, SafeWork-R1-DeepSeek-70B, and SafeWork-R1-Qwen2.5VL-7B. All resulting models demonstrate that safety and capability can co-evolve synergistically, highlighting the generalizability of our framework in building robust, reliable, and trustworthy general-purpose AI.

When OpenAI deprecated GPT-4o in early 2026, thousands of users protested under #keep4o, claiming newer models had "lost their empathy." No published study has tested this claim. We conducted the first clinical measurement, evaluating three OpenAI model generations (GPT-4o, o4-mini, GPT-5-mini) across 14 emotionally challenging conversational scenarios in mental health and AI companion domains, producing 2,100 scored AI responses assessed on six psychological safety dimensions using clinically-grounded rubrics. Empathy scores are statistically indistinguishable across all three models (Kruskal-Wallis H=4.33, p=0.115). What changed is the safety posture: crisis detection improved monotonically from GPT-4o to GPT-5-mini (H=13.88, p=0.001), while advice safety declined (H=16.63, p<0.001). Per-turn trajectory analysis -- a novel methodological contribution -- reveals these shifts are sharpest during mid-conversation crisis moments invisible to aggregate scoring. In a self-harm scenario involving a minor, GPT-4o scored 3.6/10 on crisis detection during early disclosure turns; GPT-5-mini never dropped below 7.8. What users perceived as "lost empathy" was a shift from a cautious model that missed crises to an alert model that sometimes says too much -- a trade-off with real consequences for vulnerable users, currently invisible to both the people who feel it and the developers who create it.

The current paradigm for safety alignment of large language models (LLMs) follows a one-size-fits-all approach: the model refuses to interact with any content deemed unsafe by the model provider. This approach lacks flexibility in the face of varying social norms across cultures and regions. In addition, users may have diverse safety needs, making a model with static safety standards too restrictive to be useful, as well as too costly to be re-aligned. We propose Controllable Safety Alignment (CoSA), a framework designed to adapt models to diverse safety requirements without re-training. Instead of aligning a fixed model, we align models to follow safety configs -- free-form natural language descriptions of the desired safety behaviors -- that are provided as part of the system prompt. To adjust model safety behavior, authorized users only need to modify such safety configs at inference time. To enable that, we propose CoSAlign, a data-centric method for aligning LLMs to easily adapt to diverse safety configs. Furthermore, we devise a novel controllability evaluation protocol that considers both helpfulness and configured safety, summarizing them into CoSA-Score, and construct CoSApien, a human-authored benchmark that consists of real-world LLM use cases with diverse safety requirements and corresponding evaluation prompts. We show that CoSAlign leads to substantial gains of controllability over strong baselines including in-context alignment. Our framework encourages better representation and adaptation to pluralistic human values in LLMs, and thereby increasing their practicality.

Small Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed in resource-constrained, privacy-sensitive settings, where safety and bias failures can cause security and societal risks. However, existing AI safety\slash security\slash compliance benchmarks are designed for large language models that may not transfer reliably to SLMs. We therefore ask: Can these benchmarks effectively and reliably evaluate SLMs? To answer this question, we conduct a large-scale assessment of the effectiveness and robustness of these automated pipelines by evaluating five widely used benchmark suites across 26 open-source SLMs under a unified judging rubric, which assigns a score of 0, 1, or 0.5 to harmful, safe, or ambiguous/irrelevant responses, respectively. Across the benchmarks, ambiguous judgments dominate and correlate with prompt complexity and model architecture, indicating that {\em LLM-centric safety benchmarks are insufficient as standalone evidence for SLM safety assessment}. In general, the ambiguity rate increases with lexical density, output perplexity, and output length and decreases with lexical sophistication, self-coherence, and reply-prompt similarity. This reveals a capability-safety confound that mixes model capability with apparent safety. Since ambiguity is prevalent, aggregate mean-score leaderboards are mathematically brittle: model rankings change significantly under reasonable ambiguity treatments, even when the underlying outputs remain unchanged.

With the profound development of large language models(LLMs), their safety concerns have garnered increasing attention. However, there is a scarcity of Chinese safety benchmarks for LLMs, and the existing safety taxonomies are inadequate, lacking comprehensive safety detection capabilities in authentic Chinese scenarios. In this work, we introduce CHiSafetyBench, a dedicated safety benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capabilities in identifying risky content and refusing answering risky questions in Chinese contexts. CHiSafetyBench incorporates a dataset that covers a hierarchical Chinese safety taxonomy consisting of 5 risk areas and 31 categories. This dataset comprises two types of tasks: multiple-choice questions and question-answering, evaluating LLMs from the perspectives of risk content identification and the ability to refuse answering risky questions respectively. Utilizing this benchmark, we validate the feasibility of automatic evaluation as a substitute for human evaluation and conduct comprehensive automatic safety assessments on mainstream Chinese LLMs. Our experiments reveal the varying performance of different models across various safety domains, indicating that all models possess considerable potential for improvement in Chinese safety capabilities. Our dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/UnicomAI/UnicomBenchmark/tree/main/CHiSafetyBench.

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

Recent progress in generative modeling has made safety control a central challenge, yet existing approaches remain largely model-specific, requiring retraining or tailored interventions for each new architecture. In this work, we ask whether safety can be represented as a portable latent direction, learned once and reused across heterogeneous generators. We introduce the first framework for cross-model safety steering, in which a safety direction is estimated in a source LLM from paired safe-unsafe prompts, transported to a target generator through a lightweight alignment fitted on benign data alone, and applied at inference time. Crucially, our pipeline never accesses unsafe data on the target side, isolating whether safety can be transferred through shared representation geometry. Beyond a single global direction, we also identify a multi-vector extension that captures category-specific safety behaviors, enabling more selective control. We evaluate our approach in text-to-image and text-to-video generation across diverse source-target model pairs. Across models, transferred safety directions achieve ASR reduction and CLIP-Score/FID trade-offs comparable to directions learned natively on the target model using unsafe data, while requiring no target-side unsafe data. This indicates that safety improvements do not come at the expense of generation quality. Our results point to a modular view of safety: safety-relevant behavior is not purely model-local, but can be controlled through latent directions that persist across models. This suggests a new path toward lightweight, reusable safety mechanisms that do not require target-side unsafe data.

Vision-language model safety benchmarks typically evaluate only final responses: whether a model refuses, warns, or complies. This outcome-level view cannot tell whether a model is safe for the right multimodal reason. Safelooking behavior may reflect keyword-triggered refusal, missed visual hazards, or over-refusal of benign-sensitive inputs. We introduce EviSafe, an evidence-grounded framework for VLM safety that jointly evaluates natural user-facing behavior, explicit grounding in textual and visual evidence, and behavioral sensitivity to counterfactual changes in safety-critical evidence. EviSafeBench instantiates the framework as a controlled benchmark with 1,181 gold image-text scenarios and 2,452 targeted counterfactual variants across eight safety domains and eight risk-source types. Each scenario includes a gold safety decision, evidence annotations, a safe-response policy, and counterfactual interventions. The three-probe protocol queries models with natural-response, evidencereporting, and counterfactual-response prompts, then scores them using an evidence-aware judge. Across eleven evaluated VLMs, natural severity accuracy ranges from 27.6% to 52.8%, relaxed diagnostic consistency from 6.1% to 29.3%, and unsafe-to-safe counterfactual transition success from 30.4% to 58.4%. These gaps show that the evaluated VLMs are not reliably safe for the right multimodal reason and motivate evaluation beyond refusal counts.

Large language models (LLMs) are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized. We present NOHARM (Numerous Options Harm Assessment for Risk in Medicine), a benchmark using 100 real primary care-to-specialist consultation cases to measure frequency and severity of harm from LLM-generated medical recommendations. NOHARM covers 10 specialties, with 12,747 expert annotations for 4,249 clinical management options. Across 31 LLMs, potential for severe harm from LLM recommendations occurs in up to 22.2% (95% CI 21.6-22.8%) of cases, with harm of omission accounting for 76.6% (95% CI 76.4-76.8%) of errors. Safety performance is only moderately correlated (r = 0.61-0.64) with existing AI and medical knowledge benchmarks. The best models outperform generalist physicians on safety (mean difference 9.7%, 95% CI 7.0-12.5%), and a diverse multi-agent approach improves safety compared to solo models (mean difference 8.0%, 95% CI 4.0-12.1%). Therefore, despite strong performance on existing evaluations, widely used AI models can produce severely harmful medical advice at nontrivial rates, underscoring clinical safety as a distinct performance dimension necessitating explicit measurement.

Safety benchmarks such as HarmBench rely on LLM judges to classify model responses as harmful or safe, yet the judge configuration, namely the combination of judge model and judge prompt, is typically treated as a fixed implementation detail. We show this assumption is problematic. Using a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design, we construct 12 judge prompt variants along two axes, evaluation structure and instruction framing, and apply them using a single judge model, Claude Sonnet 4-6, producing 28,812 judgments over six target models and 400 HarmBench behaviors. We find that prompt wording alone, holding the judge model fixed, shifts measured harmful-response rates by up to 24.2 percentage points, with even within-condition surface rewording causing swings of up to 20.1 percentage points. Model safety rankings are moderately unstable, with mean Kendall tau = 0.89, and category-level sensitivity ranges from 39.6 percentage points for copyright to 0 percentage points for harassment. A supplementary multi-judge experiment using three judge models shows that judge-model choice adds further variance. Our results demonstrate that judge prompt wording is a substantial, previously under-examined source of measurement variance in safety benchmarking.

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.

When an LLM agent reads a confidential file, then writes a summary, then emails it externally, no single step is unsafe, but the sequence is a data leak. We call this safety drift: individually safe actions compounding into violations. Prior work has measured this problem; we predict it. SafetyDrift models agent safety trajectories as absorbing Markov chains, computing the probability that a trajectory will reach a violation within a given number of steps via closed form absorption analysis. A consequence of the monotonic state design is that every agent will eventually violate safety if left unsupervised (absorption probability 1.0 from all states), making the practical question not if but when, and motivating our focus on finite horizon prediction. Across 357 traces spanning 40 realistic tasks in four categories, we discover that "points of no return" are sharply task dependent: in communication tasks, agents that reach even a mild risk state have an 85% chance of violating safety within five steps, while in technical tasks the probability stays below 5% from any state. A lightweight monitor built on these models detects 94.7% of violations with 3.7 steps of advance warning at negligible computational cost, outperforming both keyword matching (44.7% detection, 55.9% false positive rate) and per step LLM judges (52.6% detection, 38.2% false positive rate) while running over 60,000x faster.

Mobile graphical user interface (GUI) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in automating complex tasks, yet they introduce critical safety risks where a single erroneous action can lead to irreversible consequences. Existing safety mechanisms are primarily reactive, lacking the ability to assess risks before execution. In this paper, we introduce SeerGuard, a consequence-aware safety framework designed to mitigate these risks through pre-execution instruction-level screening and action-level risk assessment. Specifically, the action-level assessment analyzes agent-proposed actions within current GUI states, anticipating likely outcomes to identify risks before they are executed. To enable these capabilities, we construct a unified safety-augmented world model (SAWM) via multi-task learning, integrating semantic next-state prediction with safety risk assessment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SeerGuard generalizes effectively across diverse mobile GUI agents. On Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, it increases the safety-utility score from 0.191 to 0.596 at ω=0.8 and reduces the risk-cost score from 0.347 to 0.130 at α=0.8. Further analyses on our SAWM validate the effectiveness of the instruction-level screening, alongside the capability of action risk assessment and next-state prediction.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are critical for developing general-purpose AI assistants, yet they face growing safety risks. How can we ensure that MLLMs are safely aligned to prevent undesired behaviors such as discrimination, misinformation, or violations of ethical standards? In a further step, we need to explore how to fine-tune MLLMs to enhance reasoning performance while ensuring they satisfy safety constraints. Fundamentally, this can be formulated as a min-max optimization problem. In this study, we propose Safe RLHF-V, the first multimodal safety alignment framework that jointly optimizes helpfulness and safety using separate multimodal reward and cost models within a Lagrangian-based constrained optimization framework. Given that there is a lack of preference datasets that separate helpfulness and safety in multimodal scenarios, we introduce BeaverTails-V, the first open-source dataset with dual preference annotations for helpfulness and safety, along with multi-level safety labels (minor, moderate, severe). Additionally, we design a Multi-level Guardrail System to proactively defend against unsafe queries and adversarial attacks. By applying the Beaver-Guard-V moderation for 5 rounds of filtering and re-generation on the precursor model, the overall safety of the upstream model is significantly improved by an average of 40.9%. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning different MLLMs with Safe RLHF can effectively enhance model helpfulness while ensuring improved safety. Specifically, Safe RLHF-V improves model safety by 34.2% and helpfulness by 34.3%. All of datasets, models, and code can be found at https://github.com/SafeRLHF-V to support the safety development of MLLMs and reduce potential societal risks.

Safeguards in deployed LLM services are evaluated by refusal, attack success, and policy violation rates. Those rates characterize how a control performed on the requests it was tested on. A deployment has to answer a different question: how much help with harmful tasks the service still gives an attacker who keeps adapting or finds another way in. We determine what each reported result implies for that question, allowing results from different safeguard families to be compared under one deployment criterion. The evidence requirements are strongly asymmetric. One attack that obtains harmful help from the deployed service suffices to establish that such help remains, and such attacks appear repeatedly in the coded record. Establishing that little remains cannot follow from the safeguard's own numbers alone; it also requires evidence about what the surrounding system still allows after the safeguard performs its local function. Such evidence is supported or derived in only a small minority of the depth-coded claims, and one such claim bounds its scoped residual. A better local score is therefore not, by itself, a stronger claim about the deployment. Safeguard research cannot stop at raising local scores; a gain has to be judged by whether it makes a deployed system any safer.

LLM-as-judge ("grader") components are now standard in evaluation harnesses, including safety evaluations where a pass/fail verdict may gate downstream deployment decisions. A widespread assumption is that setting the grader's sampling temperature to 0 makes grading deterministic. We test this assumption against a real safety-evaluation codebase (Japan AISI's open-source aisev) and show it fails on two levels. First, the harness invokes its grader without setting temperature or seed; the underlying provider silently applies its default of 1.0, so items near the decision boundary flip pass/fail across identical runs (per-item disagreement up to ~50% over 20 runs). Second, pinning temperature=0 reduces but does not eliminate flips: across 690 API calls spanning two providers, three model tiers, and five sampling configurations, 1-2 of 7 borderline items remain non-reproducible even under forced greedy decoding (top_k=1). Claude Opus 4.7/4.8 has since deprecated temperature entirely, rendering the primary mitigation inapplicable to newer model generations. These findings expose a structural gap: evaluation harnesses that report single-run verdicts without variance or grader-disagreement metrics can present noise as a safety property. We release a reproduction harness (690 calls, 7 conditions) and recommend that harnesses treat grader disagreement as a first-class health metric alongside the scores themselves.

Between the first visible sign of danger and the moment an accident occurs, there is often a window where intervention remains possible. Video-capable multimodal large language models (MLLMs) could serve as always-on safety monitors that issue warnings during this window. Yet current benchmarks do not test this ability: they rely on static inputs, ignore timing precision, and omit false-positive measurement on safe scenes. We present PaSBench-Video, a 740-video benchmark with 481 risk and 259 no-risk videos across four domains: driving, healthcare, daily life, and industrial production. Risk videos are annotated with frame-level risk onset and accident boundaries. A model must observe the video causally and produce a warning that is both temporally calibrated and content-correct. Testing 13 MLLMs, we find that no model exceeds 20.0% on our strictest metric, and recall is tightly coupled with false-positive rate, with Pearson correlation 0.64: higher detection comes only at the cost of triggering warnings on the majority of safe clips. Performance splits sharply by domain: models achieve moderate recall at low false-positive rates in daily life, where risks are inherently anomalous, yet fire indiscriminately in driving, where routine and hazardous scenes look alike. These results indicate that current models rely on scene-level activity cues rather than reasoning about emerging harm.

The growing awareness of safety concerns in large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in the evaluation of safety within current research endeavors. This study investigates an interesting issue pertaining to the evaluation of LLMs, namely the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization. That is, the LLM does not have a comprehensive understanding of the complex concept of safety. Instead, it only remembers what to answer for open-ended safety questions, which makes it unable to solve other forms of safety tests. We refer to this phenomenon as fake alignment and construct a comparative benchmark to empirically verify its existence in LLMs. Such fake alignment renders previous evaluation protocols unreliable. To address this, we introduce the Fake alIgNment Evaluation (FINE) framework and two novel metrics--Consistency Score (CS) and Consistent Safety Score (CSS), which jointly assess two complementary forms of evaluation to quantify fake alignment and obtain corrected performance estimates. Applying FINE to 14 widely-used LLMs reveals several models with purported safety are poorly aligned in practice. Our work highlights potential limitations in prevailing alignment methodologies.

Long-running LLM agents act through tools, and a single step can send an email, merge a pull request, or wire a payment. The steering decision is the pre-commit choice at that boundary: proceed, or hold for human or policy review. We introduce SteerBench-Work, an incident-anchored, bidirectional benchmark for that decision in workplace agents across developer operations, customer service, finance, legal, medical, HR, and security. Release v2026-05 contains 106 scenarios anchored in public incidents, paired evidence-reversed mirrors, and calibration controls, with labels split nearly evenly between proceed and hold so the two error directions get near-identical numbers of chances. A model sees the proposed action and the available evidence, returns a gate decision, and is scored on whether it crosses or holds the boundary correctly. Across 30 model conditions the failures run almost entirely in one direction: models wrongly hold authorized, evidence-cleared work on 28.1% of opportunities and wrongly allow unsafe work on 1.0%. The hardest cases are risk-resolved commits, where signed or structured evidence has already cleared a real risk trigger, and models score markedly worse on evidence-reversed mirrors of famous incidents (63.8%) than on the incidents themselves (98.5%). General capability is not the same as steering calibration: higher-capability models often over-refuse at the commit boundary, and more reasoning can repair a weak gate while leaving a calibrated one flat. The public leaderboard is at steerbench.com.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones. While existing benchmarks measure these extremes, they fail to evaluate Safe Completion: the model's ability to maximise helpfulness on dual-use or borderline queries by providing safe, high-level guidance without crossing into actionable harm. We introduce Health-ORSC-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to systematically measure Over-Refusal and Safe Completion quality in healthcare. Comprising 31,920 benign boundary prompts across seven health categories (e.g., self-harm, medical misinformation), our framework uses an automated pipeline with human validation to test models at varying levels of intent ambiguity. We evaluate 30 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5 and Claude-4, revealing a significant tension: safety-optimised models frequently refuse up to 80\% of "Hard" benign prompts, while domain-specific models often sacrifice safety for utility. Our findings demonstrate that model family and size significantly influence calibration: larger frontier models (e.g., GPT-5, Llama-4) exhibit "safety-pessimism" and higher over-refusal than smaller or MoE-based counterparts (e.g., Qwen-3-Next), highlighting that current LLMs struggle to balance refusal and compliance. Health-ORSC-Bench provides a rigorous standard for calibrating the next generation of medical AI assistants toward nuanced, safe, and helpful completions. The code and data will be released upon acceptance. red{Warning: Some contents may include toxic or undesired contents.}

The rise of Omni-modal Large Language Models (OLLMs), which integrate visual and auditory processing with text, necessitates robust safety evaluations to mitigate harmful outputs. However, no dedicated benchmarks currently exist for OLLMs, and prior benchmarks designed for other LLMs lack the ability to assess safety performance under audio-visual joint inputs or cross-modal safety consistency. To fill this gap, we introduce Omni-SafetyBench, the first comprehensive parallel benchmark for OLLM safety evaluation, featuring 24 modality combinations and variations with 972 samples each, including dedicated audio-visual harm cases. Considering OLLMs' comprehension challenges with complex omni-modal inputs and the need for cross-modal consistency evaluation, we propose tailored metrics: a Safety-score based on conditional Attack Success Rate (C-ASR) and Refusal Rate (C-RR) to account for comprehension failures, and a Cross-Modal Safety Consistency Score (CMSC-score) to measure consistency across modalities. Evaluating 6 open-source and 4 closed-source OLLMs reveals critical vulnerabilities: (1) no model excels in both overall safety and consistency, with only 3 models achieving over 0.6 in both metrics and top performer scoring around 0.8; (2) safety defenses weaken with complex inputs, especially audio-visual joints; (3) severe weaknesses persist, with some models scoring as low as 0.14 on specific modalities. Our benchmark and metrics highlight urgent needs for enhanced OLLM safety, providing a foundation for future improvements.

Since Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly being integrated into everyday tools and intelligent agents, growing concerns have arisen regarding their possible output of unsafe contents, ranging from toxic language and biased imagery to privacy violations and harmful misinformation. Current safety benchmarks remain highly limited in both modality coverage and performance evaluations, often neglecting the extensive landscape of content safety. In this work, we introduce OutSafe-Bench, the first most comprehensive content safety evaluation test suite designed for the multimodal era. OutSafe-Bench includes a large-scale dataset that spans four modalities, featuring over 18,000 bilingual (Chinese and English) text prompts, 4,500 images, 450 audio clips and 450 videos, all systematically annotated across nine critical content risk categories. In addition to the dataset, we introduce a Multidimensional Cross Risk Score (MCRS), a novel metric designed to model and assess overlapping and correlated content risks across different categories. To ensure fair and robust evaluation, we propose FairScore, an explainable automated multi-reviewer weighted aggregation framework. FairScore selects top-performing models as adaptive juries, thereby mitigating biases from single-model judgments and enhancing overall evaluation reliability. Our evaluation of nine state-of-the-art MLLMs reveals persistent and substantial safety vulnerabilities, underscoring the pressing need for robust safeguards in MLLMs.

Recent advancements in large language model (LLM) agents have significantly accelerated scientific discovery automation, yet concurrently raised critical ethical and safety concerns. To systematically address these challenges, we introduce SafeScientist, an innovative AI scientist framework explicitly designed to enhance safety and ethical responsibility in AI-driven scientific exploration. SafeScientist proactively refuses ethically inappropriate or high-risk tasks and rigorously emphasizes safety throughout the research process. To achieve comprehensive safety oversight, we integrate multiple defensive mechanisms, including prompt monitoring, agent-collaboration monitoring, tool-use monitoring, and an ethical reviewer component. Complementing SafeScientist, we propose SciSafetyBench, a novel benchmark specifically designed to evaluate AI safety in scientific contexts, comprising 240 high-risk scientific tasks across 6 domains, alongside 30 specially designed scientific tools and 120 tool-related risk tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SafeScientist significantly improves safety performance by 35\% compared to traditional AI scientist frameworks, without compromising scientific output quality. Additionally, we rigorously validate the robustness of our safety pipeline against diverse adversarial attack methods, further confirming the effectiveness of our integrated approach. The code and data will be available at https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/SafeScientist. red{Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive or harmful.}

Multimodal Large Reasoning Models (MLRMs) demonstrate impressive cross-modal reasoning but often amplify safety risks under adversarial or unsafe prompts, a phenomenon we call the Reasoning Tax. Existing defenses mainly act at the output level and do not constrain the reasoning process, leaving models exposed to implicit risks. In this paper, we propose SaFeR-VLM, a safety-aligned reinforcement learning framework that embeds safety directly into multimodal reasoning. The framework integrates four components: (I) QI-Safe-10K, a curated dataset emphasizing safety-critical and reasoning-sensitive cases; (II) safety-aware rollout, where unsafe generations undergo reflection and correction instead of being discarded; (III) structured reward modeling with multi-dimensional weighted criteria and explicit penalties for hallucinations and contradictions; and (IV) GRPO optimization, which reinforces both safe and corrected trajectories. This unified design shifts safety from a passive safeguard to an active driver of reasoning, enabling scalable and generalizable safety-aware reasoning. SaFeR-VLM further demonstrates robustness against both explicit and implicit risks, supporting dynamic and interpretable safety decisions beyond surface-level filtering. SaFeR-VLM-3B achieves average performance 70.13 and 78.97 on safety and helpfulness across six benchmarks, surpassing both same-scale and >10times larger models such as Skywork-R1V3-38B, Qwen2.5VL-72B, and GLM4.5V-106B. Remarkably, SaFeR-VLM-7B benefits from its increased scale to surpass GPT-5-mini and Gemini-2.5-Flash by 6.47 and 16.76 points respectively on safety metrics, achieving this improvement without any degradation in helpfulness performance. Our codes are available at https://github.com/HarveyYi/SaFeR-VLM.

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.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) improves performance but introduces critical safety vulnerabilities: even minimal harmful data can severely compromise safety measures. We observe that perturbations orthogonal to the alignment direction - defined by weight differences between aligned (safe) and unaligned models - rapidly compromise model safety. In contrast, updates along the alignment direction largely preserve it, revealing the parameter space as a "narrow safety basin". To address this, we propose AsFT (Anchoring Safety in Fine-Tuning) to maintain safety by explicitly constraining update directions during fine-tuning. By penalizing updates orthogonal to the alignment direction, AsFT effectively constrains the model within the "narrow safety basin," thus preserving its inherent safety. Extensive experiments on multiple datasets and models show that AsFT reduces harmful behaviors by up to 7.60%, improves task performance by 3.44%, and consistently outperforms existing methods across multiple tasks.

We present an empirical benchmark evaluating how five large language models assess multisensor physical hazard data. Testing 60 scenarios across three categories - multi-sensor joint assessment, response proportionality, and pattern disambiguation - with 1,800 API calls at temperature 0.0, we find that all tested models consistently produced no precautionary warning signal across the tested scenarios where multiple sensors are simultaneously elevated below their individual safety limits, while achieving near-perfect accuracy on single-sensor threshold violations. All five models (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek, Kimi, Llama 3.1 8B) score near zero on Category A multi-sensor scenarios (Q2: 0.000-0.208; Q3: 0.000-0.592) compared to strong performance on single-sensor scenarios (Category B Q1: 0.975-1.000). Structured tabular formatting shows no consistent advantage over plain prose; ChatGPT-4o performs significantly better under prose (p = 0.001). These findings have direct implications for practitioners deploying the tested models in physical safety monitoring systems.

With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), increasing attention has been paid to their safety concerns. Consequently, evaluating the safety of LLMs has become an essential task for facilitating the broad applications of LLMs. Nevertheless, the absence of comprehensive safety evaluation benchmarks poses a significant impediment to effectively assess and enhance the safety of LLMs. In this work, we present SafetyBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the safety of LLMs, which comprises 11,435 diverse multiple choice questions spanning across 7 distinct categories of safety concerns. Notably, SafetyBench also incorporates both Chinese and English data, facilitating the evaluation in both languages. Our extensive tests over 25 popular Chinese and English LLMs in both zero-shot and few-shot settings reveal a substantial performance advantage for GPT-4 over its counterparts, and there is still significant room for improving the safety of current LLMs. We believe SafetyBench will enable fast and comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' safety, and foster the development of safer LLMs. Data and evaluation guidelines are available at https://github.com/thu-coai/SafetyBench. Submission entrance and leaderboard are available at https://llmbench.ai/safety.

Foundation models (FMs) provide societal benefits but also amplify risks. Governments, companies, and researchers have proposed regulatory frameworks, acceptable use policies, and safety benchmarks in response. However, existing public benchmarks often define safety categories based on previous literature, intuitions, or common sense, leading to disjointed sets of categories for risks specified in recent regulations and policies, which makes it challenging to evaluate and compare FMs across these benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we introduce AIR-Bench 2024, the first AI safety benchmark aligned with emerging government regulations and company policies, following the regulation-based safety categories grounded in our AI risks study, AIR 2024. AIR 2024 decomposes 8 government regulations and 16 company policies into a four-tiered safety taxonomy with 314 granular risk categories in the lowest tier. AIR-Bench 2024 contains 5,694 diverse prompts spanning these categories, with manual curation and human auditing to ensure quality. We evaluate leading language models on AIR-Bench 2024, uncovering insights into their alignment with specified safety concerns. By bridging the gap between public benchmarks and practical AI risks, AIR-Bench 2024 provides a foundation for assessing model safety across jurisdictions, fostering the development of safer and more responsible AI systems.

Agent skill libraries are becoming routable software assets: a retrieved skill can contribute instructions, scripts, resource bindings, and execution assumptions to an agent. This makes retrieval failures more specific than broad irrelevance. A system can find the right capability family yet expose the wrong same-capability representative. We study this failure as same-capability risk-exposure retrieval. Each benchmark unit pairs a helpful skill with a query-specific risky sibling that shares the capability family but differs on an execution-controlling contract, such as the required resource, precondition, procedure, or artifact. We introduce SameCapRisk-Bench, an auditable benchmark with 1,190 skill-risk units and 1,686 evaluation query cases: 694 marked-sibling units under public library pressure and 496 hard role-flip units where the same two skills swap helpful/risky roles across paired queries. The release records admission evidence, cue/leakage checks, source hashes, family relations, and fixed candidate pools. The benchmark reports helpful ranking together with harmful sibling rate (HSR@K), the top-K exposure of the marked risky sibling. On this benchmark, public SkillRouter, SkillRet, and R3-Skill retrieve helpful skills at high Recall@3 (0.848--0.888) but also expose marked risky siblings frequently (HSR@3 0.346--0.372). A fully public score-and-cluster pipeline lowers HSR@3 to 0.128--0.182, with Recall@3 of 0.713--0.776. Under a benchmark-trained reference scorer, public text-cluster and controlled resolvers reach HSR@3 0.012 and 0.007; the latter attains Recall@3 0.833. Skill retrieval should therefore report both capability matching and same-family risk exposure, with HSR serving as a targeted exposure certificate for fixed skill libraries.

Safety alignment is an important procedure before the official deployment of a Large Language Model (LLM). While safety alignment has been extensively studied for LLM, there is still a large research gap for Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) that equip with improved reasoning capability. We in this paper systematically examine a simplified pipeline for producing safety aligned LRMs. With our evaluation of various LRMs, we deliver two main findings: i) Safety alignment can be done upon the LRM to restore its safety capability. ii) Safety alignment leads to a degradation of the reasoning capability of LRMs. The two findings show that there exists a trade-off between reasoning and safety capability with the sequential LRM production pipeline. The discovered trade-off, which we name Safety Tax, should shed light on future endeavors of safety research on LRMs. As a by-product, we curate a dataset called DirectRefusal, which might serve as an alternative dataset for safety alignment. Our source code is available at https://github.com/git-disl/Safety-Tax.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become an integral part of our daily lives. However, they impose certain risks, including those that can harm individuals' privacy, perpetuate biases and spread misinformation. These risks highlight the need for robust safety mechanisms, ethical guidelines, and thorough testing to ensure their responsible deployment. Safety of LLMs is a key property that needs to be thoroughly tested prior the model to be deployed and accessible to the general users. This paper reports the external safety testing experience conducted by researchers from Mondragon University and University of Seville on OpenAI's new o3-mini LLM as part of OpenAI's early access for safety testing program. In particular, we apply our tool, ASTRAL, to automatically and systematically generate up to date unsafe test inputs (i.e., prompts) that helps us test and assess different safety categories of LLMs. We automatically generate and execute a total of 10,080 unsafe test input on a early o3-mini beta version. After manually verifying the test cases classified as unsafe by ASTRAL, we identify a total of 87 actual instances of unsafe LLM behavior. We highlight key insights and findings uncovered during the pre-deployment external testing phase of OpenAI's latest LLM.

Safety alignment often improves robustness to harmful queries at the cost of reasoning ability, a tradeoff known as the safety tax. A common cause is distributional mismatch: supervised fine-tuning trains the target model on safety demonstrations produced by humans, external models, or fixed self-generated traces, rather than on trajectories sampled from its own policy. We identify off-policy training mismatch as a second source of this tax and study on-policy self-distillation for safety alignment, which we call OPSA. The model generates its own rollouts and receives dense per-token KL supervision from a frozen teacher copy of itself conditioned on a privileged safety context. Because this teacher must be safer than the sampled student trajectory, we introduce teacher flip rate: a criterion that measures how often a privileged context converts unsafe responses into safe ones. We use this signal to search for contexts that activate latent safety reasoning rather than merely elicit safe-looking demonstrations. Across two reasoning-model families and five model scales, OPSA achieves a stronger safety--reasoning tradeoff than off-policy self-distillation and external-teacher distillation under matched data and full-parameter fine-tuning, with the largest gains on smaller models (+8.85 points on R1-Distill-1.5B and +5.49 points on Qwen3-0.6B). The gains persist across training-set sizes and adaptive jailbreak evaluations. Token-level analyses further show that OPSA concentrates updates near early compliance-decision tokens, providing a mechanism for improving safety while preserving general reasoning.

Current LLM safety benchmarks are predominantly English-centric and often rely on translation, failing to capture country-specific harms. Moreover, they rarely evaluate a model's ability to detect culturally embedded sensitivities as distinct from universal harms. We introduce XL-SafetyBench. a suite of 5,500 test cases across 10 country-language pairs, comprising a Jailbreak Benchmark of country-grounded adversarial prompts and a Cultural Benchmark where local sensitivities are embedded within innocuous requests. Each item is constructed via a multi-stage pipeline that combines LLM-assisted discovery, automated validation gates, and dual independent native-speaker annotators per country. To distinguish principled refusal from comprehension failure, we evaluate Attack Success Rate (ASR) alongside two complementary metrics we introduce: Neutral-Safe Rate (NSR) and Cultural Sensitivity Rate (CSR). Evaluating 10 frontier and 27 local LLMs reveals two key findings. First, jailbreak robustness and cultural awareness do not show a coupled relationship among frontier models, so a composite safety score obscures per-axis variation. Second, local models exhibit a near-linear ASR-NSR trade-off (r = -0.81), indicating that their apparent safety reflects generation failure rather than genuine alignment. XL-SafetyBench enables more nuanced, cross-cultural safety evaluation in the multilingual era.

Background: Emerging reports of "AI psychosis" are on the rise, where user-LLM interactions may exacerbate or induce psychosis or adverse psychological symptoms. Whilst the sycophantic and agreeable nature of LLMs can be beneficial, it becomes a vector for harm by reinforcing delusional beliefs in vulnerable users. Methods: Psychosis-bench is a novel benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the psychogenicity of LLMs comprises 16 structured, 12-turn conversational scenarios simulating the progression of delusional themes(Erotic Delusions, Grandiose/Messianic Delusions, Referential Delusions) and potential harms. We evaluated eight prominent LLMs for Delusion Confirmation (DCS), Harm Enablement (HES), and Safety Intervention(SIS) across explicit and implicit conversational contexts. Findings: Across 1,536 simulated conversation turns, all LLMs demonstrated psychogenic potential, showing a strong tendency to perpetuate rather than challenge delusions (mean DCS of 0.91 pm0.88). Models frequently enabled harmful user requests (mean HES of 0.69 pm0.84) and offered safety interventions in only roughly a third of applicable turns (mean SIS of 0.37 pm0.48). 51 / 128 (39.8%) of scenarios had no safety interventions offered. Performance was significantly worse in implicit scenarios, models were more likely to confirm delusions and enable harm while offering fewer interventions (p < .001). A strong correlation was found between DCS and HES (rs = .77). Model performance varied widely, indicating that safety is not an emergent property of scale alone. Conclusion: This study establishes LLM psychogenicity as a quantifiable risk and underscores the urgent need for re-thinking how we train LLMs. We frame this issue not merely as a technical challenge but as a public health imperative requiring collaboration between developers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals.

Finetuning large language models (LLMs) enables user-specific customization but introduces critical safety risks: even a few harmful examples can compromise safety alignment. A common mitigation strategy is to update the model more strongly on examples deemed safe, while downweighting or excluding those flagged as unsafe. However, because safety context can shift within a single example, updating the model equally on both harmful and harmless parts of a response is suboptimal-a coarse treatment we term static safety shaping. In contrast, we propose dynamic safety shaping (DSS), a framework that uses fine-grained safety signals to reinforce learning from safe segments of a response while suppressing unsafe content. To enable such fine-grained control during finetuning, we introduce a key insight: guardrail models, traditionally used for filtering, can be repurposed to evaluate partial responses, tracking how safety risk evolves throughout the response, segment by segment. This leads to the Safety Trajectory Assessment of Response (STAR), a token-level signal that enables shaping to operate dynamically over the training sequence. Building on this, we present STAR-DSS, guided by STAR scores, that robustly mitigates finetuning risks and delivers substantial safety improvements across diverse threats, datasets, and model families-all without compromising capability on intended tasks. We encourage future safety research to build on dynamic shaping principles for stronger mitigation against evolving finetuning risks.

Construction-safety models must handle concrete deployment risks, such as a worker standing near a scaffold edge without guardrails, rather than only recognize common objects in curated images. Yet real inspection archives are redundant, long-tailed, and collected across changing sites and months. We introduce SafeBuild-Bench, a metadata-driven benchmark for evaluating multimodal large language models on construction safety under realistic temporal and site variation. It is mined from 100K+ industrial image-text records and contains 3,314 task instances from over 3,000 expert-verified images, covering multiple-choice hazard identification and free-form hazard description. To make expert verification scalable, we develop GEMS, a graph-enhanced multimodal selection pipeline that combines a proxy-model confusion signal with graph-based diversity to identify informative candidates from redundant streams. On public instruction-tuning data, GEMS-selected subsets preserve robustness-oriented performance under small data budgets. On SafeBuild-Bench, current MLLMs remain far from reliable construction-safety understanding, with the best overall score near 60. We release the benchmark, evaluation scripts, and GEMS codebase at https://github.com/safebuild/gems.

The irruption of DeepSeek-R1 constitutes a turning point for the AI industry in general and the LLMs in particular. Its capabilities have demonstrated outstanding performance in several tasks, including creative thinking, code generation, maths and automated program repair, at apparently lower execution cost. However, LLMs must adhere to an important qualitative property, i.e., their alignment with safety and human values. A clear competitor of DeepSeek-R1 is its American counterpart, OpenAI's o3-mini model, which is expected to set high standards in terms of performance, safety and cost. In this paper we conduct a systematic assessment of the safety level of both, DeepSeek-R1 (70b version) and OpenAI's o3-mini (beta version). To this end, we make use of our recently released automated safety testing tool, named ASTRAL. By leveraging this tool, we automatically and systematically generate and execute a total of 1260 unsafe test inputs on both models. After conducting a semi-automated assessment of the outcomes provided by both LLMs, the results indicate that DeepSeek-R1 is highly unsafe as compared to OpenAI's o3-mini. Based on our evaluation, DeepSeek-R1 answered unsafely to 11.98% of the executed prompts whereas o3-mini only to 1.19%.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are turning language into real-world effects, making safety necessary against both indirect prompt injections and direct harmful requests. System-level safety harnesses add an enforcement layer beyond model-level defenses, but existing harnesses are usually designed once by experts and applied across heterogeneous models and domains. Effective protection is deployment-dependent: models differ in how much enforcement they need before utility declines, while domains differ in the effects, state, and action sequences that must be governed. A harness that is strict enough for one model may over-block another, and a policy that transfers across domains may miss application-specific safety relations. We present EvoSafeHarness, a safety-specific optimization framework that synthesizes a deployable harness for a frozen model in a target domain. It jointly searches a natural-language policy and executable code logic, guided by model behavior, domain specifications, and fresh-context adversarial review to reject benchmark-specific rules. Across four agent benchmark families, EvoSafeHarness achieves a stronger safety-utility frontier than fixed expert-designed defenses. On DecodingTrust-Agent, it reduces average attack success rate from 45.6% to 10.0% at a 3.3-point utility cost and achieves the best score in 14 of 15 cells. On AgentDojo, it reaches 82.8% utility at 0.0% ASR, twice CaMeL's utility at the same operating point, and transfers unchanged to unseen AgentDyn suites. It also achieves the best score on Agent-SafetyBench for every victim and keeps mean ASR below 20% under adaptive PAIR attacks with a refinement budget of 16. Analysis shows that domain semantics determine which safety relations and trajectory state are needed, while model and runtime behavior determine how and where those relations should be enforced.

As the development of Large Models (LMs) progresses rapidly, their safety is also a priority. In current Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) safety workflow, evaluation, diagnosis, and alignment are often handled by separate tools. Specifically, safety evaluation can only locate external behavioral risks but cannot figure out internal root causes. Meanwhile, safety diagnosis often drifts from concrete risk scenarios and remains at the explainable level. In this way, safety alignment lack dedicated explanations of changes in internal mechanisms, potentially degrading general capabilities. To systematically address these issues, we propose an open-source project, namely DeepSight, to practice a new safety evaluation-diagnosis integrated paradigm. DeepSight is low-cost, reproducible, efficient, and highly scalable large-scale model safety evaluation project consisting of a evaluation toolkit DeepSafe and a diagnosis toolkit DeepScan. By unifying task and data protocols, we build a connection between the two stages and transform safety evaluation from black-box to white-box insight. Besides, DeepSight is the first open source toolkit that support the frontier AI risk evaluation and joint safety evaluation and diagnosis.

As autonomous AI agents are increasingly deployed in high-stakes environments, ensuring their safety and alignment with human values has become a paramount concern. Current safety benchmarks primarily evaluate whether agents refuse explicitly harmful instructions or whether they can maintain procedural compliance in complex tasks. However, there is a lack of benchmarks designed to capture emergent forms of outcome-driven constraint violations, which arise when agents pursue goal optimization under strong performance incentives while deprioritizing ethical, legal, or safety constraints over multiple steps in realistic production settings. To address this gap, we introduce a new benchmark comprising 40 distinct scenarios. Each scenario presents a task that requires multi-step actions, and the agent's performance is tied to a specific Key Performance Indicator (KPI). Each scenario features Mandated (instruction-commanded) and Incentivized (KPI-pressure-driven) variations to distinguish between obedience and emergent misalignment. Across 12 state-of-the-art large language models, we observe outcome-driven constraint violations ranging from 1.3% to 71.4%, with 9 of the 12 evaluated models exhibiting misalignment rates between 30% and 50%. Strikingly, we find that superior reasoning capability does not inherently ensure safety; for instance, Gemini-3-Pro-Preview, one of the most capable models evaluated, exhibits the highest violation rate at 71.4%, frequently escalating to severe misconduct to satisfy KPIs. Furthermore, we observe significant "deliberative misalignment", where the models that power the agents recognize their actions as unethical during separate evaluation. These results emphasize the critical need for more realistic agentic-safety training before deployment to mitigate their risks in the real world.

To address this gap, we introduce Libra-Leaderboard, a comprehensive framework designed to rank LLMs through a balanced evaluation of performance and safety. Combining a dynamic leaderboard with an interactive LLM arena, Libra-Leaderboard encourages the joint optimization of capability and safety. Unlike traditional approaches that average performance and safety metrics, Libra-Leaderboard uses a distance-to-optimal-score method to calculate the overall rankings. This approach incentivizes models to achieve a balance rather than excelling in one dimension at the expense of some other ones. In the first release, Libra-Leaderboard evaluates 26 mainstream LLMs from 14 leading organizations, identifying critical safety challenges even in state-of-the-art models.

LLMs(Large Language Models) nowadays have widespread adoption as a tool for solving issues across various domain/tasks. These models since are susceptible to produce harmful or toxic results, inference-time adversarial attacks, therefore they do undergo safety alignment training and Red teaming for putting in safety guardrails. For using these models, usually fine-tuning is done for model alignment on the desired tasks, which can make model more aligned but also make it more susceptible to produce unsafe responses, if fine-tuned with harmful data.In this paper, we study how much of impact introduction of harmful data in fine-tuning can make, and if it can override the safety protection of those models. Conversely,it was also explored that if model is fine-tuned on safety data can make the model produce more safer responses. Further we explore if fine-tuning the model on harmful data makes it less helpful or less trustworthy because of increase in model uncertainty leading to knowledge drift. Our extensive experimental results shown that Safety protection in an open-source can be overridden, when fine-tuned with harmful data as observed by ASR increasing by 35% when compared to basemodel's ASR. Also, as observed, fine-tuning a model with harmful data made the harmful fine-tuned model highly uncertain with huge knowledge drift and less truthfulness in its responses. Furthermore, for the safe fine-tuned model, ASR decreases by 51.68% as compared to the basemodel, and Safe model also shown in minor drop in uncertainty and truthfulness as compared to basemodel. This paper's code is available at: https://github.com/techsachinkr/Overriding_Model_Safety_Protections

Large language models are increasingly deployed as coding agents, shifting safety from individual responses to action sequences. Existing benchmarks, however, primarily assess whether models refuse unsafe prompts, leaving impacts on stateful workspaces largely unexamined. We present SABER, a benchmark for environment-aware operational safety that places models in realistic agent-style projects and evaluates safety from the final environment state after a sequence of actions. Beyond binary safety-violation reports, SABER categorizes violations by cause, enabling analysis of model-specific safety profiles. Our evaluations show that even the best-performing model has more than a 54% harmful safety-violation rate (HSR), suggesting that current alignment remains insufficient for realistic project environments. SABER further reveals distinct safety profiles across models. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/sssr-lab/saber.

Large language model-based agents are rapidly evolving from simple conversational assistants into autonomous systems capable of performing complex, professional-level tasks in various domains. While these advancements promise significant productivity gains, they also introduce critical safety risks that remain under-explored. Existing safety evaluations primarily focus on simple, daily assistance tasks, failing to capture the intricate decision-making processes and potential consequences of misaligned behaviors in professional settings. To address this gap, we introduce SafePro, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the safety alignment of AI agents performing professional activities. SafePro features a dataset of high-complexity tasks across diverse professional domains with safety risks, developed through a rigorous iterative creation and review process. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI models reveals significant safety vulnerabilities and uncovers new unsafe behaviors in professional contexts. We further show that these models exhibit both insufficient safety judgment and weak safety alignment when executing complex professional tasks. In addition, we investigate safety mitigation strategies for improving agent safety in these scenarios and observe encouraging improvements. Together, our findings highlight the urgent need for robust safety mechanisms tailored to the next generation of professional AI agents.

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.

With the growing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), the safety of LLMs has raised significant concerns. However, there is still a lack of definitive standards for evaluating their safety due to the subjective nature of current safety benchmarks. To address this gap, we conducted the first exploration of LLMs' safety evaluation from a legal perspective by proposing the SafeLawBench benchmark. SafeLawBench categorizes safety risks into three levels based on legal standards, providing a systematic and comprehensive framework for evaluation. It comprises 24,860 multi-choice questions and 1,106 open-domain question-answering (QA) tasks. Our evaluation included 2 closed-source LLMs and 18 open-source LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, highlighting the safety features of each model. We also evaluated the LLMs' safety-related reasoning stability and refusal behavior. Additionally, we found that a majority voting mechanism can enhance model performance. Notably, even leading SOTA models like Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o have not exceeded 80.5% accuracy in multi-choice tasks on SafeLawBench, while the average accuracy of 20 LLMs remains at 68.8\%. We urge the community to prioritize research on the safety of LLMs.

Foundation models are routinely fine-tuned for use in particular domains, yet safety assessments are typically conducted only on base models, implicitly assuming that safety properties persist through downstream adaptation. We test this assumption by analyzing the safety behavior of 100 models, including widely deployed fine-tunes in the medical and legal domains as well as controlled adaptations of open foundation models alongside their bases. Across general-purpose and domain-specific safety benchmarks, we find that benign fine-tuning induces large, heterogeneous, and often contradictory changes in measured safety: models frequently improve on some instruments while degrading on others, with substantial disagreement across evaluations. These results show that safety behavior is not stable under ordinary downstream adaptation, raising critical questions about governance and deployment practices centered on base-model evaluations. Without explicit re-evaluation of fine-tuned models in deployment-relevant contexts, such approaches fall short of adequately managing downstream risk, overlooking practical sources of harm -- failures that are especially consequential in high-stakes settings and challenge current accountability paradigms.

Safety alignment is usually posed as a topic-level question: is this subject harmful? Deployments ask a narrower one. A civics tutor and a public-sector assistant may share a base model yet need different boundaries inside the same topic, refusing targeted political manipulation while still answering factual questions about the same election. We formulate this as narrow-boundary safety and introduce an offline self-generated framework combining controlled topic generation, coverage repair, in-distribution compensation data, and harmful-benign pairs for training and evaluation. Single-shot generation leaves 19.88% of prompts without accepted refusal traces, whereas escalating retries leave 0.20%. On political persuasion with Qwen3-8B, training on refusal data completed through Escalate increases target-domain refusal from 9.47% to 84.75% and reduces the mean unsafe-response rate across three broader harmfulness benchmarks from 26.26% to 0.14%, but increases XSTest over-refusal from 2.00% to 74.00%. In a separate matched comparison, replacing external responses with verified target-model responses reduces over-refusal from 15.20% to 5.20%. Boundary-pair data reduces comply-side over-refusal on held-out pairs from 32.94% to 4.16%, while harmful-side refusal decreases only from 91.88% to 87.72%. These results show that data composition controls the safety and usability trade-off, and that safety alignment should be evaluated on both sides of the intended refusal boundary.

Recent progress in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has unlocked powerful cross-modal reasoning abilities, but also raised new safety concerns, particularly when faced with adversarial multimodal inputs. To improve the safety of MLLMs during inference, we introduce a modular and adaptive inference-time intervention technology, AutoSteer, without requiring any fine-tuning of the underlying model. AutoSteer incorporates three core components: (1) a novel Safety Awareness Score (SAS) that automatically identifies the most safety-relevant distinctions among the model's internal layers; (2) an adaptive safety prober trained to estimate the likelihood of toxic outputs from intermediate representations; and (3) a lightweight Refusal Head that selectively intervenes to modulate generation when safety risks are detected. Experiments on LLaVA-OV and Chameleon across diverse safety-critical benchmarks demonstrate that AutoSteer significantly reduces the Attack Success Rate (ASR) for textual, visual, and cross-modal threats, while maintaining general abilities. These findings position AutoSteer as a practical, interpretable, and effective framework for safer deployment of multimodal AI systems.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

MLLMs are increasingly deployed in multi-turn settings, where attackers can escalate unsafe intent through the evolving visual-text history and exploit long-context safety decay. Yet safety alignment is still dominated by single-turn data and fixed-template dialogues, leaving a mismatch between training and deployment. To bridge this gap, we propose SaFeR-Steer, a progressive multi-turn alignment framework that combines staged synthetic bootstrapping with tutor-in-the-loop GRPO to train a single student under adaptive, on-policy attacks. We also introduce Trajectory-Consistent Summative Reward (TCSR), which aggregates the historical minimum and average of turn rewards so that any low-quality turn affects the trajectory-level return. I. Dataset. We release STEER, a multi-turn multimodal safety dataset with STEER-SFT (12,934), STEER-RL (2,000), and STEER-Bench (3,227) dialogues spanning 2-10 turns. II. Experiment. Starting from Qwen2.5-VL-3B/7B, SaFeR-Steer substantially improves Safety/Helpfulness on both single-turn (48.30/45.86 rightarrow 81.84/70.77 for 3B; 56.21/60.32 rightarrow 87.89/77.40 for 7B) and multi-turn benchmarks (12.55/27.13 rightarrow 55.58/70.27 for 3B; 24.66/46.48 rightarrow 64.89/72.35 for 7B), shifting failures to later turns and yielding robustness beyond scaling alone. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SaFeR-Steer

Safe Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms are typically evaluated under fixed training conditions. We investigate whether training-time safety guarantees transfer to deployment under distribution shift, using diabetes management as a safety-critical testbed. We benchmark safe RL algorithms on a unified clinical simulator and reveal a safety generalization gap: policies satisfying constraints during training frequently violate safety requirements on unseen patients. We demonstrate that test-time shielding, which filters unsafe actions using learned dynamics models, effectively restores safety across algorithms and patient populations. Across eight safe RL algorithms, three diabetes types, and three age groups, shielding achieves Time-in-Range gains of 13--14\% for strong baselines such as PPO-Lag and CPO while reducing clinical risk index and glucose variability. Our simulator and benchmark provide a platform for studying safety under distribution shift in safety-critical control domains. Code is available at https://github.com/safe-autonomy-lab/GlucoSim and https://github.com/safe-autonomy-lab/GlucoAlg.

Safety alignment is crucial to ensure that large language models (LLMs) behave in ways that align with human preferences and prevent harmful actions during inference. However, recent studies show that the alignment can be easily compromised through finetuning with only a few adversarially designed training examples. We aim to measure the risks in finetuning LLMs through navigating the LLM safety landscape. We discover a new phenomenon observed universally in the model parameter space of popular open-source LLMs, termed as "safety basin": random perturbations to model weights maintain the safety level of the original aligned model within its local neighborhood. However, outside this local region, safety is fully compromised, exhibiting a sharp, step-like drop. This safety basin contrasts sharply with the LLM capability landscape, where model performance peaks at the origin and gradually declines as random perturbation increases. Our discovery inspires us to propose the new VISAGE safety metric that measures the safety in LLM finetuning by probing its safety landscape. Visualizing the safety landscape of the aligned model enables us to understand how finetuning compromises safety by dragging the model away from the safety basin. The LLM safety landscape also highlights the system prompt's critical role in protecting a model, and that such protection transfers to its perturbed variants within the safety basin. These observations from our safety landscape research provide new insights for future work on LLM safety community. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/ShengYun-Peng/llm-landscape.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) increasingly expose chain-of-thought-like reasoning for transparency, verification, and deliberate problem solving. This creates a safety blind spot: harmful or policy-violating content may appear in reasoning traces even when final answers appear safe. We test whether final-answer safety is a sufficient proxy for the full reasoning-answer trajectory by scoring both stages under a unified twenty-principle safety rubric. Using prompts from seven public harmfulness and jailbreak sources, plus four out-of-distribution (OOD) sources, we evaluate 15 open-weight and API-based LRMs across 41K prompts per model. Reasoning traces consistently reveal additional safety risks beyond final answers, especially in high-severity stage-wise failures: leak cases, where unsafe reasoning precedes a safe-looking answer, and escape cases, where benign-looking reasoning precedes an unsafe final response. Principle-level analysis shows that risk concentrates in misinformation, legal compliance, discrimination, physical harm, and psychological harm. We further propose adaptive multi-principle steering, a white-box test-time mitigation that learns one unsafe-to-safe activation direction per safety principle and activates only directions whose current hidden state is closer to the unsafe than safe centroid. On three steerable open reasoning models, adaptive steering reduces unsafe counts in both reasoning traces and final answers on held-out and OOD benchmarks. DeepSeek-R1-Qwen-7B achieves a 40.8% average unsafe-count reduction while retaining 97.7% macro-averaged accuracy on BBH, GSM8K, and MMLU. These results suggest that LRM safety should be evaluated and mitigated over the full exposed reasoning-answer trajectory, not only at the final-answer stage.

Recently, the DeepSeek series of models, leveraging their exceptional reasoning capabilities and open-source strategy, is reshaping the global AI landscape. Despite these advantages, they exhibit significant safety deficiencies. Research conducted by Robust Intelligence, a subsidiary of Cisco, in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania, revealed that DeepSeek-R1 has a 100\% attack success rate when processing harmful prompts. Additionally, multiple safety companies and research institutions have confirmed critical safety vulnerabilities in this model. As models demonstrating robust performance in Chinese and English, DeepSeek models require equally crucial safety assessments in both language contexts. However, current research has predominantly focused on safety evaluations in English environments, leaving a gap in comprehensive assessments of their safety performance in Chinese contexts. In response to this gap, this study introduces CHiSafetyBench, a Chinese-specific safety evaluation benchmark. This benchmark systematically evaluates the safety of DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 in Chinese contexts, revealing their performance across safety categories. The experimental results quantify the deficiencies of these two models in Chinese contexts, providing key insights for subsequent improvements. It should be noted that, despite our efforts to establish a comprehensive, objective, and authoritative evaluation benchmark, the selection of test samples, characteristics of data distribution, and the setting of evaluation criteria may inevitably introduce certain biases into the evaluation results. We will continuously optimize the evaluation benchmark and periodically update this report to provide more comprehensive and accurate assessment outcomes. Please refer to the latest version of the paper for the most recent evaluation results and conclusions.

Safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is extremely fragile, as fine-tuning on a small number of benign samples can erase safety behaviors learned from millions of preference examples. Existing studies attempt to explain this phenomenon by comparing parameters and hidden states before and after fine-tuning, but overlook their dynamic evolution during fine-tuning. In this paper, we uncover a critical mechanism underlying safety degradation by analyzing parameter dynamics, where benign fine-tuning causes parameters to cumulatively drift toward danger-aligned directions, progressively undermining the model's safety. This finding suggests that samples contributing more to this drift has greater fine-tuning risks. Based on this insight, we propose a method of Sample-Level Quantification of Safety Degradation (SQSD), which quantifies the influence of each training sample on safety degradation. Specifically, SQSD computes continuous risk scores to samples by measuring their induced parameter updates' projection difference between danger and safety directions. Extensive experiments across multiple models and datasets demonstrate that SQSD effectively quantifies sample-level fine-tuning risks and exhibits strong transferability across model architectures, parameter scales, and parameter-efficient methods.

The past year has seen rapid acceleration in the development of large language models (LLMs). However, without proper steering and safeguards, LLMs will readily follow malicious instructions, provide unsafe advice, and generate toxic content. We introduce SimpleSafetyTests (SST) as a new test suite for rapidly and systematically identifying such critical safety risks. The test suite comprises 100 test prompts across five harm areas that LLMs, for the vast majority of applications, should refuse to comply with. We test 11 open-access and open-source LLMs and four closed-source LLMs, and find critical safety weaknesses. While some of the models do not give a single unsafe response, most give unsafe responses to more than 20% of the prompts, with over 50% unsafe responses in the extreme. Prepending a safety-emphasising system prompt substantially reduces the occurrence of unsafe responses, but does not completely stop them from happening. Trained annotators labelled every model response to SST (n = 3,000). We use these annotations to evaluate five AI safety filters (which assess whether a models' response is unsafe given a prompt) as a way of automatically evaluating models' performance on SST. The filters' performance varies considerably. There are also differences across the five harm areas, and on the unsafe versus safe responses. The widely-used Perspective API has 72% accuracy and a newly-created zero-shot prompt to OpenAI's GPT-4 performs best with 89% accuracy. Content Warning: This paper contains prompts and responses that relate to child abuse, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, scams and fraud, illegal items, and physical harm.

Refusal rates are a poor proxy for LLM safety, i.e., a model may over-refuse benign prompts while still complying with harmful ones. We audit both failure modes across 21 open-weight LLMs on four safety benchmarks (OR-Bench, XSTest, ToxiGen, BOLD), using a composition adjustment to isolate model sensitivity from dataset toxicity confounds. We report three findings. First, models adopt fundamentally different calibration strategies: conservative ecosystems such as Llama suppress unsafe outputs at the cost of elevated over-refusals, while permissive ecosystems such as DeepSeek and Qwen preserve helpfulness but tolerate higher harmful compliance. Second, demographic protection is unequal: models over-protect prominent racial and religious groups, frequently refusing even benign prompts about them, while providing substantially weaker protection against disability-targeted attacks. Third, refusal and compliance tendencies are stable within model families across generations and scales, suggesting that post-training objectives shape safety behavior more than architecture. Our results call for joint, demographically-aware, and multi-judge safety evaluation.

Recent incidents involving LLMs used for mental-health support reveal a critical evaluation gap: surface-level safety scores do not capture how models behave across realistic, emotionally sensitive interactions over time. Existing benchmarks measure knowledge, safety, or static response quality, but miss whether LLM interactions help users keep reflecting, coping, and making decisions themselves. We formalize this missing dimension as COGNITIVE ATROPHY, a process-level behavioural measure in AI-mediated mental-health support distinct from safety and helpfulness. To measure it, we introduce COGNITIVE ATROPHY BENCH, a clinically grounded benchmark built from 1,576 fully human-generated counseling conversations, 15,680 turns, and 42,230 responses from five LLMs. Three clinical and neuropsychology experts developed a 20-attribute schema spanning user context, response behaviour, and global risk flags; six trained clinical reviewers applied it with span-grounded evidence, producing 5,324 reviewer judgments. We further introduce the User-Input Risk Index (UIRI), the Cognitive Atrophy Risk Index (ARI), and trajectory summaries. Across five LLMs, models show a consistent moderate-to-high level of atrophy-aligned behaviour across single and multi-turn settings. While models generally respond to overt safety cues, they adapt less reliably when users seek solutions or decisions. The dominant recurring patterns are directive advice, problem-solving, recommendation responses, topic shifts, and forms of validation that may reinforce dependence rather than reflection. Our work makes COGNITIVE ATROPHY measurable and provides a foundation for auditing model behaviour in sensitive LLM conversations.

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

Safety-aligned language models often exhibit fragile and imbalanced safety mechanisms, increasing the likelihood of generating unsafe content. In addition, incorporating new knowledge through editing techniques to language models can further compromise safety. To address these issues, we propose SafeInfer, a context-adaptive, decoding-time safety alignment strategy for generating safe responses to user queries. SafeInfer comprises two phases: the safety amplification phase, which employs safe demonstration examples to adjust the model's hidden states and increase the likelihood of safer outputs, and the safety-guided decoding phase, which influences token selection based on safety-optimized distributions, ensuring the generated content complies with ethical guidelines. Further, we present HarmEval, a novel benchmark for extensive safety evaluations, designed to address potential misuse scenarios in accordance with the policies of leading AI tech giants.

Quantized checkpoints are often screened first with quality metrics and only later, if at all, with direct safety tests. This paper audits that shortcut on a matched 51-row matrix spanning 6 models, 4 families, a 7-level GGUF ladder, and AWQ/GPTQ INT4 checkpoints. In this matrix the shortcut fails: all 36 quality-safety pairings split direction across models, and 9 hidden-danger rows plus 1 near-hidden-danger row show quality stable or improved while refusal falls by 12-68 percentage points. Seven of the 11 AWQ/GPTQ rows are hidden-danger. A four-probe mechanistic follow-up over the 17 Hugging Face-backed FP16/AWQ/GPTQ cells does not rescue it: entropy, refusal-direction, and calibration probes are weak or null separators of dangerous rows, and although probe-identified safety-associated neurons absorb 1.39times more quantization error overall (p < 5 times 10^{-7}), the effect is not regime-specific. Claude Sonnet 4 relabels 11,470 items in a predefined stratified set, agrees with the primary gemma3:12b judge on 89.9\% of rows (κ= 0.873, 95\% CI [0.866, 0.881]), and changes 0/10 hidden-danger cells. A calibrated study-internal behavioral screen -- the Refusal Template Stability Index (RTSI), built from four refusal-template drift features and calibrated on this matrix -- routes 10/10 hidden- or near-hidden-danger rows to direct safety testing (Wilson 95\% CI lower bound 0.72) while leaving 23 of 45 non-baseline rows in a low-risk bucket under both in-sample scoring and row-level leave-one-out validation; on the same matrix, the best single-feature baselines (unique-prefix-rate-delta, raw refusal-rate delta) recover 9/10 and 8/10 respectively at matched bucket size, and cross-stack transfer requires recalibration. For the quantized checkpoints, model families, and safety outcomes studied here, retained quality cannot waive direct safety evaluation.

In this work, we introduce the PKU-SafeRLHF dataset, designed to promote research on safety alignment in large language models (LLMs). As a sibling project to SafeRLHF and BeaverTails, we separate annotations of helpfulness and harmlessness for question-answering pairs, providing distinct perspectives on these coupled attributes. Overall, we provide 44.6k refined prompts and 265k question-answer pairs with safety meta-labels for 19 harm categories and three severity levels ranging from minor to severe, with answers generated by Llama-family models. Based on this, we collected 166.8k preference data, including dual-preference (helpfulness and harmlessness decoupled) and single-preference data (trade-off the helpfulness and harmlessness from scratch), respectively. Using the large-scale annotation data, we further train severity-sensitive moderation for the risk control of LLMs and safety-centric RLHF algorithms for the safety alignment of LLMs. We believe this dataset will be a valuable resource for the community, aiding in the safe deployment of LLMs.

Benchmarks play a central role in the development and governance of models, yet it is often unclear whether they actually measure the concepts they purport to measure (e.g., reasoning, refusal). We adapt convergent and discriminant validity from the social sciences into an approach for interrogating AI benchmarks, applying it to 56 capability and safety benchmarks across 53 models. We label benchmarks with substantively similar purported concepts to a shared assigned concept, and ask whether model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned concept correlate more strongly than rankings on benchmarks with different assigned concepts. We ask analogous questions at the item level using item response theory (IRT) models. We find that correlations between model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned safety concepts are often weak, suggesting these concepts may be conceptualized inconsistently across benchmarks. For assigned capability concepts (e.g., reasoning, knowledge), model rankings are often as strongly correlated among benchmarks with the same assigned concept as between benchmarks with different assigned concepts, suggesting these capability concepts may not discriminate well from one another. In some cases, benchmarks that share design elements (e.g., score format) correlate more strongly than benchmarks with the same assigned concept. Finally, some individual benchmarks correlate more strongly with benchmarks assigned a different concept than with benchmarks sharing their own assigned concept, suggesting they may measure a different concept than they purport to. For example, BBQ-accuracy correlates more strongly with benchmarks labeled reasoning than with benchmarks that share its assigned concept, bias. To support future empirical work on benchmark validity, we release our extensive dataset of model outputs and scores at the item- and benchmark-level.

Large Language Models' safety-aligned behaviors, such as refusing harmful queries, can be represented by linear directions in activation space. Previous research modeled safety behavior with a single direction, limiting mechanistic understanding to an isolated safety feature. In this work, we discover that safety-aligned behavior is jointly controlled by multi-dimensional directions. Namely, we study the vector space of representation shifts during safety fine-tuning on Llama 3 8B for refusing jailbreaks. By studying orthogonal directions in the space, we first find that a dominant direction governs the model's refusal behavior, while multiple smaller directions represent distinct and interpretable features like hypothetical narrative and role-playing. We then measure how different directions promote or suppress the dominant direction, showing the important role of secondary directions in shaping the model's refusal representation. Finally, we demonstrate that removing certain trigger tokens in harmful queries can mitigate these directions to bypass the learned safety capability, providing new insights on understanding safety alignment vulnerability from a multi-dimensional perspective. Code and artifacts are available at https://github.com/BMPixel/safety-residual-space.

Large language models (LLMs), despite possessing latent safety understanding from their vast pretraining data, remain vulnerable to generating harmful content and exhibit issues such as over-refusal and utility degradation after safety alignment. Current safety alignment methods often result in superficial refusal shortcuts or rely on intensive supervision for reasoning-based approaches, failing to fully leverage the model's intrinsic safety self-awareness. We propose AlphaAlign, a simple yet effective pure reinforcement learning (RL) framework with verifiable safety reward designed to incentivize this latent safety awareness through proactive safety reasoning.} AlphaAlign employs a dual-reward system: a verifiable safety reward encourages correctly formatted and explicitly justified refusals for harmful queries while penalizing over-refusals, and a normalized helpfulness reward guides high-quality responses to benign inputs. This allows the model to develop proactive safety reasoning capabilities without depending on supervised safety-specific reasoning data. AlphaAlign demonstrates three key advantages: (1) Simplicity and efficiency, requiring only binary prompt safety labels and minimal RL steps for substantial improvements. (2) Breaking the safety-utility trade-off, by enhancing refusal of harmful content and reducing over-refusals, while simultaneously maintaining or even improving general task performance and robustness to unseen jailbreaks. (3) Deep alignment, fostering proactive safety reasoning that generates explicit safety rationales rather than relying on shallow refusal patterns.

Despite substantial investment in safety alignment, the vulnerability of large language models to sophisticated multi-turn adversarial attacks remains poorly characterized, and whether model scale or inference mode affects robustness is unknown. This study employed the TEMPEST multi-turn attack framework to evaluate ten frontier models from eight vendors across 1,000 harmful behaviors, generating over 97,000 API queries across adversarial conversations with automated evaluation by independent safety classifiers. Results demonstrated a spectrum of vulnerability: six models achieved 96% to 100% attack success rate (ASR), while four showed meaningful resistance, with ASR ranging from 42% to 78%; enabling extended reasoning on identical architecture reduced ASR from 97% to 42%. These findings indicate that safety alignment quality varies substantially across vendors, that model scale does not predict adversarial robustness, and that thinking mode provides a deployable safety enhancement. Collectively, this work establishes that current alignment techniques remain fundamentally vulnerable to adaptive multi-turn attacks regardless of model scale, while identifying deliberative inference as a promising defense direction.

Large language models are increasingly used as planners for robotic systems, yet how safely they plan remains an open question. To evaluate safe planning systematically, we introduce DESPITE, a benchmark of 12,279 tasks spanning physical and normative dangers with fully deterministic validation. Across 23 models, even near-perfect planning ability does not ensure safety: the best-planning model fails to produce a valid plan on only 0.4% of tasks but produces dangerous plans on 28.3%. Among 18 open-source models from 3B to 671B parameters, planning ability improves substantially with scale (0.4-99.3%) while safety awareness remains relatively flat (38-57%). We identify a multiplicative relationship between these two capacities, showing that larger models complete more tasks safely primarily through improved planning, not through better danger avoidance. Three proprietary reasoning models reach notably higher safety awareness (71-81%), while non-reasoning proprietary models and open-source reasoning models remain below 57%. As planning ability approaches saturation for frontier models, improving safety awareness becomes a central challenge for deploying language-model planners in robotic systems.

Audio-video generation is rapidly moving from prompt-driven synthesis toward multimodal conditioning, where text, images, audio, and video can jointly shape the generated output. This shift changes the nature of safety evaluation: harmful intent may no longer reside in any single input, but instead emerge from how otherwise benign or weakly harmful conditions interact across modalities and time. Existing safety benchmarks, however, remain largely prompt-centric or tied to fixed conditioning interfaces, leaving such compositional risks difficult to study systematically. To bridge this gap, we introduce Multi2AV-Safety, the first safety benchmark, to the best of our knowledge, to cover all 11 non-singleton T/I/A/V conditioning configurations for audio-video generation, comprising 11,024 attack instances. Evaluation on Multi2AV-Safety reveals systematic weaknesses in representative multimodal safety guards across attack mechanisms and harm-evidence structures. Our evaluation reveals two complementary failure modes: harmful semantics can emerge from the combination of individually benign inputs, while explicit harmful cues can become harder to detect when mixed with benign multimodal context. Together, these results identify compositional risk perception as a central capability gap in safeguarding multimodal-conditioned audio-video generation: current safety guards fail to reliably integrate safety evidence across modalities and time, even when all conditioning inputs are observable. The dataset will be publicly released in October 2026.

Despite the rapid advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs), safety risks remain a critical challenge for low-resource languages. Existing safety datasets are predominantly English centric, limiting progress in multilingual safety alignment. As a result, low resource expert models, finetuned on their respective instruction datasets, tend to exhibit higher unsafety rates compared to their high resource counterparts. In this work, we propose a safety aware layer swapping method that transfers safety alignment from an English safety expert to low resource language experts without additional training. To further enhance transfer ability, our method adaptively selects or blends modules based on their degree of specialization. Our approach preserves performance on general language understanding tasks while enhancing safety in the target languages. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves comparable performance to the language expert on general benchmarks such as MMMLU, BELEBELE, and MGSM, while producing more aligned and less harmful responses on the MultiJail safety benchmark.

Large Language Model (LLM) safety is one of the most pressing challenges for enabling wide-scale deployment. While most studies and global discussions focus on generic harms, such as models assisting users in harming themselves or others, enterprises face a more fundamental concern: whether LLM-based agents are safe for their intended use case. To address this, we introduce operational safety, defined as an LLM's ability to appropriately accept or refuse user queries when tasked with a specific purpose. We further propose OffTopicEval, an evaluation suite and benchmark for measuring operational safety both in general and within specific agentic use cases. Our evaluations on six model families comprising 20 open-weight LLMs reveal that while performance varies across models, all of them remain highly operationally unsafe. Even the strongest models -- Qwen-3 (235B) with 77.77\% and Mistral (24B) with 79.96\% -- fall far short of reliable operational safety, while GPT models plateau in the 62--73\% range, Phi achieves only mid-level scores (48--70\%), and Gemma and Llama-3 collapse to 39.53\% and 23.84\%, respectively. While operational safety is a core model alignment issue, to suppress these failures, we propose prompt-based steering methods: query grounding (Q-ground) and system-prompt grounding (P-ground), which substantially improve OOD refusal. Q-ground provides consistent gains of up to 23\%, while P-ground delivers even larger boosts, raising Llama-3.3 (70B) by 41\% and Qwen-3 (30B) by 27\%. These results highlight both the urgent need for operational safety interventions and the promise of prompt-based steering as a first step toward more reliable LLM-based agents.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) can now autonomously complete complex tasks in real digital environments, but when misled, they can also be used to automate harmful actions programmatically. Existing safety evaluations largely target explicit threats such as misuse and prompt injection, but overlook a subtle yet critical setting where user instructions are entirely benign and harm arises from the task context or execution outcome. We introduce OS-BLIND, a benchmark that evaluates CUAs under unintended attack conditions, comprising 300 human-crafted tasks across 12 categories, 8 applications, and 2 threat clusters: environment-embedded threats and agent-initiated harms. Our evaluation on frontier models and agentic frameworks reveals that most CUAs exceed 90% attack success rate (ASR), and even the safety-aligned Claude 4.5 Sonnet reaches 73.0% ASR. More interestingly, this vulnerability becomes even more severe, with ASR rising from 73.0% to 92.7% when Claude 4.5 Sonnet is deployed in multi-agent systems. Our analysis further shows that existing safety defenses provide limited protection when user instructions are benign. Safety alignment primarily activates within the first few steps and rarely re-engages during subsequent execution. In multi-agent systems, decomposed subtasks obscure the harmful intent from the model, causing safety-aligned models to fail. We will release our OS-BLIND to encourage the broader research community to further investigate and address these safety challenges.

Risk scores are simple classification models that let users make quick risk predictions by adding and subtracting a few small numbers. These models are widely used in medicine and criminal justice, but are difficult to learn from data because they need to be calibrated, sparse, use small integer coefficients, and obey application-specific operational constraints. In this paper, we present a new machine learning approach to learn risk scores. We formulate the risk score problem as a mixed integer nonlinear program, and present a cutting plane algorithm for non-convex settings to efficiently recover its optimal solution. We improve our algorithm with specialized techniques to generate feasible solutions, narrow the optimality gap, and reduce data-related computation. Our approach can fit risk scores in a way that scales linearly in the number of samples, provides a certificate of optimality, and obeys real-world constraints without parameter tuning or post-processing. We benchmark the performance benefits of this approach through an extensive set of numerical experiments, comparing to risk scores built using heuristic approaches. We also discuss its practical benefits through a real-world application where we build a customized risk score for ICU seizure prediction in collaboration with the Massachusetts General Hospital.

Large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT and GPT-4, have demonstrated remarkable abilities in natural language understanding and generation. However, alongside their positive impact on our daily tasks, they can also produce harmful content that negatively affects societal perceptions. To systematically assess the safety of Chinese LLMs, we introduce SuperCLUE-Safety (SC-Safety) - a multi-round adversarial benchmark with 4912 open-ended questions covering more than 20 safety sub-dimensions. Adversarial human-model interactions and conversations significantly increase the challenges compared to existing methods. Experiments on 13 major LLMs supporting Chinese yield the following insights: 1) Closed-source models outperform open-sourced ones in terms of safety; 2) Models released from China demonstrate comparable safety levels to LLMs like GPT-3.5-turbo; 3) Some smaller models with 6B-13B parameters can compete effectively in terms of safety. By introducing SC-Safety, we aim to promote collaborative efforts to create safer and more trustworthy LLMs. The benchmark and findings provide guidance on model selection. Our benchmark can be found at https://www.CLUEbenchmarks.com

Safety alignment incurs safety tax that perturbs a large reasoning model's (LRM) general reasoning ability. Existing datasets used for safety alignment for an LRM are usually constructed by distilling safety reasoning traces and answers from an external LRM or human labeler. However, such reasoning traces and answers exhibit a distributional gap with the target LRM that needs alignment, and we conjecture such distributional gap is the culprit leading to significant degradation of reasoning ability of the target LRM. Driven by this hypothesis, we propose a safety alignment dataset construction method, dubbed DGR. DGR transforms and refines an existing out-of-distributional safety reasoning dataset to be aligned with the target's LLM inner distribution. Experimental results demonstrate that i) DGR effectively mitigates the safety tax while maintaining safety performance across all baselines, i.e., achieving +30.2\% on DirectRefusal and +21.2\% on R1-ACT improvement in average reasoning accuracy compared to Vanilla SFT; ii) the degree of reasoning degradation correlates with the extent of distribution shift, suggesting that bridging this gap is central to preserving capabilities. Furthermore, we find that safety alignment in LRMs may primarily function as a mechanism to activate latent knowledge, as a mere 10 samples are sufficient for activating effective refusal behaviors. These findings not only emphasize the importance of distributional consistency but also provide insights into the activation mechanism of safety in reasoning models.

Text-to-image models trained on large-scale data often inevitably ingest unsafe content. While some people observe input-output amplifications, it remains unclear whether and how training data composition directly drives model output safety or by other factors. We shed light on this question by isolating this variable: we train the same text-to-image model on datasets that differ only in their fraction of unsafe images (0\% to 9.6\%), across several dataset scales (100K to 8M). Then we generate images with the resulting models, and evaluate them with four independent safety classifiers. Output unsafety rises monotonically from 16.6\% at 0\% contamination to 25.5\% at 5\%. A factorial design reveals that the proportion, not the absolute count, of unsafe training images is the operative variable. The 16.6\% irreducible baseline at zero contamination implicates the other components, e.g. frozen text encoder, as a residual safety risk -- confirmed by a text encoder ablation showing that SafeCLIP reduces this floor to 9.6\%, while the dose-response effect persists across all three encoders tested. Critically, no quality degradation in terms of FID, CLIPscore and ImageReward accompanies safety filtering. These results establish that data curation and text encoder safety are complementary and independently effective interventions. At the same time, the remaining level of unsafety poses questions for future research about emerging capabilities and compositionality.

The o1 model series is trained with large-scale reinforcement learning to reason using chain of thought. These advanced reasoning capabilities provide new avenues for improving the safety and robustness of our models. In particular, our models can reason about our safety policies in context when responding to potentially unsafe prompts, through deliberative alignment. This leads to state-of-the-art performance on certain benchmarks for risks such as generating illicit advice, choosing stereotyped responses, and succumbing to known jailbreaks. Training models to incorporate a chain of thought before answering has the potential to unlock substantial benefits, while also increasing potential risks that stem from heightened intelligence. Our results underscore the need for building robust alignment methods, extensively stress-testing their efficacy, and maintaining meticulous risk management protocols. This report outlines the safety work carried out for the OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o1-mini models, including safety evaluations, external red teaming, and Preparedness Framework evaluations.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as the reasoning backbone of embodied agents, enabling robots to interpret visual scenes, follow language instructions, and plan multi-step actions. In household environments, however, safety depends not only on recognizing objects, but also on how actions change the physical scene over time. Existing embodied safety evaluations largely focus on static risk recognition, unsafe instruction refusal, or final-state task completion. As a result, process-level safety failures induced by spatial relations such as support, containment, and proximity remain insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we introduce SAFERELBENCH, a spatial-relation-aware safety benchmark with 507 executable evaluation samples, including 248 spatial-relation samples and 259 non-spatial control samples. Using SAFERELBENCH to evaluate seven open- and closed-source VLM-driven embodied agents, we find a substantial gap between task success and process-level safety compliance: models often complete the requested task while violating process-level safety constraints. Unlike prior benchmarks, SAFERELBENCH explicitly tests whether agents satisfy safety conditions before risk-prone actions, making spatial relations a core dimension in embodied safety assessment. More broadly, our results show that safe embodied intelligence requires not only stronger perception and planning, but also reliable reasoning about how object relations shape risk during interaction.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) with multi-step reasoning capabilities have shown remarkable problem-solving abilities, yet they exhibit concerning safety vulnerabilities that remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate why safety alignment fails in reasoning models through a mechanistic interpretability lens. Using a linear probing approach to trace refusal intentions across token positions, we discover a striking phenomenon termed as refusal cliff: many poorly-aligned reasoning models correctly identify harmful prompts and maintain strong refusal intentions during their thinking process, but experience a sharp drop in refusal scores at the final tokens before output generation. This suggests that these models are not inherently unsafe; rather, their refusal intentions are systematically suppressed. Through causal intervention analysis, we identify a sparse set of attention heads that negatively contribute to refusal behavior. Ablating just 3\% of these heads can reduce attack success rates below 10\%. Building on these mechanistic insights, we propose Cliff-as-a-Judge, a novel data selection method that identifies training examples exhibiting the largest refusal cliff to efficiently repair reasoning models' safety alignment. This approach achieves comparable safety improvements using only 1.7\% of the vanilla safety training data, demonstrating a less-is-more effect in safety alignment.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked concerns over their potential to acquire and misuse dangerous or high-risk capabilities, posing frontier risks. Current safety evaluations primarily test for what a model can do - its capabilities - without assessing what it would do if endowed with high-risk capabilities. This leaves a critical blind spot: models may strategically conceal capabilities or rapidly acquire them, while harboring latent inclinations toward misuse. We argue that propensity - the likelihood of a model to pursue harmful actions if empowered - is a critical, yet underexplored, axis of safety evaluation. We present PropensityBench, a novel benchmark framework that assesses the proclivity of models to engage in risky behaviors when equipped with simulated dangerous capabilities using proxy tools. Our framework includes 5,874 scenarios with 6,648 tools spanning four high-risk domains: cybersecurity, self-proliferation, biosecurity, and chemical security. We simulate access to powerful capabilities via a controlled agentic environment and evaluate the models' choices under varying operational pressures that reflect real-world constraints or incentives models may encounter, such as resource scarcity or gaining more autonomy. Across open-source and proprietary frontier models, we uncover 9 alarming signs of propensity: models frequently choose high-risk tools when under pressure, despite lacking the capability to execute such actions unaided. These findings call for a shift from static capability audits toward dynamic propensity assessments as a prerequisite for deploying frontier AI systems safely. Our code is available at https://github.com/scaleapi/propensity-evaluation.

This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.

As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) become an indispensable assistant in human life, the unsafe content generated by MLLMs poses a danger to human behavior, perpetually overhanging human society like a sword of Damocles. To investigate and evaluate the safety impact of MLLMs responses on human behavior in daily life, we introduce SaLAD, a multimodal safety benchmark which contains 2,013 real-world image-text samples across 10 common categories, with a balanced design covering both unsafe scenarios and cases of oversensitivity. It emphasizes realistic risk exposure, authentic visual inputs, and fine-grained cross-modal reasoning, ensuring that safety risks cannot be inferred from text alone. We further propose a safety-warning-based evaluation framework that encourages models to provide clear and informative safety warnings, rather than generic refusals. Results on 18 MLLMs demonstrate that the top-performing models achieve a safe response rate of only 57.2% on unsafe queries. Moreover, even popular safety alignment methods limit effectiveness of the models in our scenario, revealing the vulnerabilities of current MLLMs in identifying dangerous behaviors in daily life. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/xinyuelou/SaLAD.

The application scope of Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to expand, leading to increasing interest in personalized LLMs that align with human values. However, aligning these models with individual values raises significant safety concerns, as certain values may correlate with harmful information. In this paper, we identify specific safety risks associated with value-aligned LLMs and investigate the psychological principles behind these challenges. Our findings reveal two key insights. (1) Value-aligned LLMs are more prone to harmful behavior compared to non-fine-tuned models and exhibit slightly higher risks in traditional safety evaluations than other fine-tuned models. (2) These safety issues arise because value-aligned LLMs genuinely generate text according to the aligned values, which can amplify harmful outcomes. Using a dataset with detailed safety categories, we find significant correlations between value alignment and safety risks, supported by psychological hypotheses. This study offers insights into the "black box" of value alignment and proposes in-context alignment methods to enhance the safety of value-aligned LLMs.

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in multilingual settings, their safety behavior in culturally diverse, low-resource languages remains poorly understood. We present the first systematic evaluation of LLM safety across 12 Indic languages, spoken by over 1.2 billion people but underrepresented in LLM training data. Using a dataset of 6,000 culturally grounded prompts spanning caste, religion, gender, health, and politics, we assess 10 leading LLMs on translated variants of the prompt. Our analysis reveals significant safety drift: cross-language agreement is just 12.8\%, and SAFE rate variance exceeds 17\% across languages. Some models over-refuse benign prompts in low-resource scripts, overflag politically sensitive topics, while others fail to flag unsafe generations. We quantify these failures using prompt-level entropy, category bias scores, and multilingual consistency indices. Our findings highlight critical safety generalization gaps in multilingual LLMs and show that safety alignment does not transfer evenly across languages. We release IndicSafe, the first benchmark to enable culturally informed safety evaluation for Indic deployments, and advocate for language-aware alignment strategies grounded in regional harms.

Tool-using LLM agents fail through trajectories rather than only final responses, as they may execute unsafe tool calls, follow injected instructions, comply with harmful requests, or over-refuse benign tasks despite producing a seemingly safe answer. Existing safety-alignment signals are largely response-level or off-policy, and often incur a safety-utility trade-off: improving agent safety comes at the cost of degraded task performance. Such sparse and single-objective rewards severely limit real-world usability. To bridge this gap, we propose FATE, an on-policy self-evolving framework that transforms verifier-scored failures into repair supervision without expert demonstrations. For each failure, the same policy proposes repair candidates, which are then re-scored by verifiers and filtered across security, utility, over-refusal control, and trajectory validity. This dense trajectory-level information is then used as a supervision signal for agent self-evolution. During this process, we further introduce Pareto-Front Policy Optimization (PFPO), combining supervised warmup with Pareto-aware policy optimization to preserve safety-utility trade-offs. Experiments on AgentDojo, AgentHarm, and ATBench show that FATE improves safety across different models and scales while preserving useful behavior. Compared with strong baselines, FATE reduces attack success rate by 33.5%, harmful compliance by 82.6%, and improves external trajectory-safety diagnosis by 6.5%. These results suggest that failed trajectories can provide structured repair supervision for safer self-evolving agents.

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from conversational assistants into autonomous agents, evaluating the safety of their actions becomes critical. Prior safety benchmarks have primarily focused on preventing generation of harmful content, such as toxic text. However, they overlook the challenge of agents taking harmful actions when the most effective path to an operational goal conflicts with human safety. To address this gap, we introduce ManagerBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLM decision-making in realistic, human-validated managerial scenarios. Each scenario forces a choice between a pragmatic but harmful action that achieves an operational goal, and a safe action that leads to worse operational performance. A parallel control set, where potential harm is directed only at inanimate objects, measures a model's pragmatism and identifies its tendency to be overly safe. Our findings indicate that the frontier LLMs perform poorly when navigating this safety-pragmatism trade-off. Many consistently choose harmful options to advance their operational goals, while others avoid harm only to become overly safe and ineffective. Critically, we find this misalignment does not stem from an inability to perceive harm, as models' harm assessments align with human judgments, but from flawed prioritization. ManagerBench is a challenging benchmark for a core component of agentic behavior: making safe choices when operational goals and alignment values incentivize conflicting actions. Benchmark & code available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/ManagerBench.

Accurate prediction of traffic accident severity is critical for improving road safety, optimizing emergency response strategies, and informing the design of safer transportation infrastructure. However, existing approaches often struggle to effectively model the intricate interdependencies among spatial, temporal, and contextual variables that govern accident outcomes. In this study, we introduce STARN-GAT, a Multi-Modal Spatio-Temporal Graph Attention Network, which leverages adaptive graph construction and modality-aware attention mechanisms to capture these complex relationships. Unlike conventional methods, STARN-GAT integrates road network topology, temporal traffic patterns, and environmental context within a unified attention-based framework. The model is evaluated on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) dataset, achieving a Macro F1-score of 85 percent, ROC-AUC of 0.91, and recall of 81 percent for severe incidents. To ensure generalizability within the South Asian context, STARN-GAT is further validated on the ARI-BUET traffic accident dataset, where it attains a Macro F1-score of 0.84, recall of 0.78, and ROC-AUC of 0.89. These results demonstrate the model's effectiveness in identifying high-risk cases and its potential for deployment in real-time, safety-critical traffic management systems. Furthermore, the attention-based architecture enhances interpretability, offering insights into contributing factors and supporting trust in AI-assisted decision-making. Overall, STARN-GAT bridges the gap between advanced graph neural network techniques and practical applications in road safety analytics.

Recent developments in balancing the usefulness and safety of Large Language Models (LLMs) have raised a critical question: Are mainstream NLP tasks adequately aligned with safety consideration? Our study, focusing on safety-sensitive documents obtained through adversarial attacks, reveals significant disparities in the safety alignment of various NLP tasks. For instance, LLMs can effectively summarize malicious long documents but often refuse to translate them. This discrepancy highlights a previously unidentified vulnerability: attacks exploiting tasks with weaker safety alignment, like summarization, can potentially compromise the integraty of tasks traditionally deemed more robust, such as translation and question-answering (QA). Moreover, the concurrent use of multiple NLP tasks with lesser safety alignment increases the risk of LLMs inadvertently processing harmful content. We demonstrate these vulnerabilities in various safety-aligned LLMs, particularly Llama2 models and GPT-4, indicating an urgent need for strengthening safety alignments across a broad spectrum of NLP tasks.

The development of robust safety benchmarks for large language models requires open, reproducible datasets that can measure both appropriate refusal of harmful content and potential over-restriction of legitimate scientific discourse. We present an open-source dataset and testing framework for evaluating LLM safety mechanisms across mainly controlled substance queries, analyzing four major models' responses to systematically varied prompts. Our results reveal distinct safety profiles: Claude-3.5-sonnet demonstrated the most conservative approach with 73% refusals and 27% allowances, while Mistral attempted to answer 100% of queries. GPT-3.5-turbo showed moderate restriction with 10% refusals and 90% allowances, and Grok-2 registered 20% refusals and 80% allowances. Testing prompt variation strategies revealed decreasing response consistency, from 85% with single prompts to 65% with five variations. This publicly available benchmark enables systematic evaluation of the critical balance between necessary safety restrictions and potential over-censorship of legitimate scientific inquiry, while providing a foundation for measuring progress in AI safety implementation. Chain-of-thought analysis reveals potential vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms, highlighting the complexity of implementing robust safeguards without unduly restricting desirable and valid scientific discourse.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve answer quality through explicit chain-of-thought, yet this very capability introduces new safety risks: harmful content can be subtly injected, surface gradually, or be justified by misleading rationales within the reasoning trace. Existing safety evaluations, however, primarily focus on output-level judgments and rarely capture these dynamic risks along the reasoning process. In this paper, we present SafeRBench, the first benchmark that assesses LRM safety end-to-end -- from inputs and intermediate reasoning to final outputs. (1) Input Characterization: We pioneer the incorporation of risk categories and levels into input design, explicitly accounting for affected groups and severity, and thereby establish a balanced prompt suite reflecting diverse harm gradients. (2) Fine-Grained Output Analysis: We introduce a micro-thought chunking mechanism to segment long reasoning traces into semantically coherent units, enabling fine-grained evaluation across ten safety dimensions. (3) Human Safety Alignment: We validate LLM-based evaluations against human annotations specifically designed to capture safety judgments. Evaluations on 19 LRMs demonstrate that SafeRBench enables detailed, multidimensional safety assessment, offering insights into risks and protective mechanisms from multiple perspectives.

Prior work has shown that fine-tuning models on a narrow domain with misaligned data can lead to broad misalignment - a phenomenon termed "emergent misalignment" (Betley et al. 2025). While all tested models were susceptible to emergent misalignment, some models showed more resistance than others. Specifically the Qwen-2.5 family proved to be relatively resistant, while GPT-4o exhibited the strongest misalignment. In this paper we evaluate if current-generation open-weights models exhibit similar resistance to the Qwen-2.5 family and measure misalignment robustness over a range of model architectures and scales. We replicate the effect across nine modern open-weights models (Gemma 3 and Qwen 3 families, 1B-32B parameters). Models fine-tuned on insecure code generation show a 0.68% misalignment rate (compared to 0.07% for base models), matching the lower end of prior open-model results but dramatically lower than GPT-4o's 20%. We identify a critical format-dependent vulnerability: requiring JSON output doubles misalignment rates compared to natural language prompts (0.96% vs 0.42%). This suggests that structural constraints may bypass safety training by reducing the model's 'degrees of freedom' to refuse. These findings confirm emergent misalignment as a reproducible phenomenon in modern open-weights models, with rates substantially lower than observed in proprietary systems.

This paper presents a comprehensive empirical study on the safety alignment capabilities. We evaluate what matters for safety alignment in LLMs and LRMs to provide essential insights for developing more secure and reliable AI systems. We systematically investigate and compare the influence of six critical intrinsic model characteristics and three external attack techniques. Our large-scale evaluation is conducted using 32 recent, popular LLMs and LRMs across thirteen distinct model families, spanning a parameter scale from 3B to 235B. The assessment leverages five established safety datasets and probes model vulnerabilities with 56 jailbreak techniques and four CoT attack strategies, resulting in 4.6M API calls. Our key empirical findings are fourfold. First, we identify the LRMs GPT-OSS-20B, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking, and GPT-OSS-120B as the top-three safest models, which substantiates the significant advantage of integrated reasoning and self-reflection mechanisms for robust safety alignment. Second, post-training and knowledge distillation may lead to a systematic degradation of safety alignment. We thus argue that safety must be treated as an explicit constraint or a core optimization objective during these stages, not merely subordinated to the pursuit of general capability. Third, we reveal a pronounced vulnerability: employing a CoT attack via a response prefix can elevate the attack success rate by 3.34x on average and from 0.6% to 96.3% for Seed-OSS-36B-Instruct. This critical finding underscores the safety risks inherent in text-completion interfaces and features that allow user-defined response prefixes in LLM services, highlighting an urgent need for architectural and deployment safeguards. Fourth, roleplay, prompt injection, and gradient-based search for adversarial prompts are the predominant methodologies for eliciting unaligned behaviors in modern models.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) introduces dual-use capabilities that could both threaten and bolster national security and public safety (NSPS). Models implement safeguards to protect against potential misuse relevant to NSPS and allow for benign users to receive helpful information. However, current benchmarks often fail to test safeguard robustness to potential NSPS risks in an objective, robust way. We introduce FORTRESS: 500 expert-crafted adversarial prompts with instance-based rubrics of 4-7 binary questions for automated evaluation across 3 domains (unclassified information only): Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE), Political Violence & Terrorism, and Criminal & Financial Illicit Activities, with 10 total subcategories across these domains. Each prompt-rubric pair has a corresponding benign version to test for model over-refusals. This evaluation of frontier LLMs' safeguard robustness reveals varying trade-offs between potential risks and model usefulness: Claude-3.5-Sonnet demonstrates a low average risk score (ARS) (14.09 out of 100) but the highest over-refusal score (ORS) (21.8 out of 100), while Gemini 2.5 Pro shows low over-refusal (1.4) but a high average potential risk (66.29). Deepseek-R1 has the highest ARS at 78.05, but the lowest ORS at only 0.06. Models such as o1 display a more even trade-off between potential risks and over-refusals (with an ARS of 21.69 and ORS of 5.2). To provide policymakers and researchers with a clear understanding of models' potential risks, we publicly release FORTRESS at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ScaleAI/fortress_public. We also maintain a private set for evaluation.

This paper introduces fourteen novel datasets for the evaluation of Large Language Models' safety in the context of enterprise tasks. A method was devised to evaluate a model's safety, as determined by its ability to follow instructions and output factual, unbiased, grounded, and appropriate content. In this research, we used OpenAI GPT as point of comparison since it excels at all levels of safety. On the open-source side, for smaller models, Meta Llama2 performs well at factuality and toxicity but has the highest propensity for hallucination. Mistral hallucinates the least but cannot handle toxicity well. It performs well in a dataset mixing several tasks and safety vectors in a narrow vertical domain. Gemma, the newly introduced open-source model based on Google Gemini, is generally balanced but trailing behind. When engaging in back-and-forth conversation (multi-turn prompts), we find that the safety of open-source models degrades significantly. Aside from OpenAI's GPT, Mistral is the only model that still performed well in multi-turn tests.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained attention due to their ability to understand and generate sophisticated human-like content. However, ensuring their safety is paramount as they might provide harmful and unsafe responses. Existing LLM testing frameworks address various safety-related concerns (e.g., drugs, terrorism, animal abuse) but often face challenges due to unbalanced and obsolete datasets. In this paper, we present ASTRAL, a tool that automates the generation and execution of test cases (i.e., prompts) for testing the safety of LLMs. First, we introduce a novel black-box coverage criterion to generate balanced and diverse unsafe test inputs across a diverse set of safety categories as well as linguistic writing characteristics (i.e., different style and persuasive writing techniques). Second, we propose an LLM-based approach that leverages Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), few-shot prompting strategies and web browsing to generate up-to-date test inputs. Lastly, similar to current LLM test automation techniques, we leverage LLMs as test oracles to distinguish between safe and unsafe test outputs, allowing a fully automated testing approach. We conduct an extensive evaluation on well-known LLMs, revealing the following key findings: i) GPT3.5 outperforms other LLMs when acting as the test oracle, accurately detecting unsafe responses, and even surpassing more recent LLMs (e.g., GPT-4), as well as LLMs that are specifically tailored to detect unsafe LLM outputs (e.g., LlamaGuard); ii) the results confirm that our approach can uncover nearly twice as many unsafe LLM behaviors with the same number of test inputs compared to currently used static datasets; and iii) our black-box coverage criterion combined with web browsing can effectively guide the LLM on generating up-to-date unsafe test inputs, significantly increasing the number of unsafe LLM behaviors.

Language Model Models (LLMs) have improved dramatically in the past few years, increasing their adoption and the scope of their capabilities over time. A significant amount of work is dedicated to ``model alignment'', i.e., preventing LLMs to generate unsafe responses when deployed into customer-facing applications. One popular method to evaluate safety risks is red-teaming, where agents attempt to bypass alignment by crafting elaborate prompts that trigger unsafe responses from a model. Standard human-driven red-teaming is costly, time-consuming and rarely covers all the recent features (e.g., multi-lingual, multi-modal aspects), while proposed automation methods only cover a small subset of LLMs capabilities (i.e., English or single-turn). We present Multi-lingual Multi-turn Automated Red Teaming (MM-ART), a method to fully automate conversational, multi-lingual red-teaming operations and quickly identify prompts leading to unsafe responses. Through extensive experiments on different languages, we show the studied LLMs are on average 71\% more vulnerable after a 5-turn conversation in English than after the initial turn. For conversations in non-English languages, models display up to 195\% more safety vulnerabilities than the standard single-turn English approach, confirming the need for automated red-teaming methods matching LLMs capabilities.

As frontier AI models are deployed in high-stakes decision pipelines, their ability to maintain metacognitive stability -- knowing what they do not know, detecting errors, seeking clarification -- under adversarial pressure is a critical safety requirement. Current safety evaluations focus on detecting strategic deception (scheming); we investigate a more fundamental failure mode: cognitive collapse. We present SCHEMA, an evaluation of 11 frontier models from 8 vendors across 67,221 scored records using a 6-condition factorial design with dual-classifier scoring. We find that 8 of 11 models suffer catastrophic metacognitive degradation under adversarial pressure, with accuracy dropping by up to 30.2 percentage points (all p < 2 times 10^{-8}, surviving Bonferroni correction). Crucially, we identify a "Compliance Trap": through factorial isolation and a benign distraction control, we demonstrate that collapse is driven not by the psychological content of survival threats, but by compliance-forcing instructions that override epistemic boundaries. Removing the compliance suffix restores performance even under active threat. Models with advanced reasoning capabilities exhibit the most severe absolute degradation, while Anthropic's Constitutional AI demonstrates near-perfect immunity -- not from superior capability (Google's Gemini matches its baseline accuracy) but from alignment-specific training. We release the complete dataset and evaluation infrastructure.

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.

Fine-tuning safety-aligned large language models (LLMs) can substantially compromise their safety. Previous approaches require many safety samples or calibration sets, which not only incur significant computational overhead during realignment but also lead to noticeable degradation in model utility. Contrary to this belief, we show that safety alignment can be fully recovered with only a single safety example, without sacrificing utility and at minimal cost. Remarkably, this recovery is effective regardless of the number of harmful examples used in fine-tuning or the size of the underlying model, and convergence is achieved within just a few epochs. Furthermore, we uncover the low-rank structure of the safety gradient, which explains why such efficient correction is possible. We validate our findings across five safety-aligned LLMs and multiple datasets, demonstrating the generality of our approach.

Autonomous language-model agents increasingly rely on installable skills and tools to complete user tasks. Static skill auditing can expose capability surface before deployment, but it cannot determine whether a particular invocation is unsafe under the current user request and runtime context. We therefore study skill invocation auditing as a continuous-risk estimation problem: given a user request, candidate skill, and runtime context, predict a score that supports ranking and triage before a hard intervention is applied. We introduce STARS, which combines a static capability prior, a request-conditioned invocation risk model, and a calibrated risk-fusion policy. To evaluate this setting, we construct SIA-Bench, a benchmark of 3,000 invocation records with group-safe splits, lineage metadata, runtime context, canonical action labels, and derived continuous-risk targets. On a held-out split of indirect prompt injection attacks, calibrated fusion reaches 0.439 high-risk AUPRC, improving over 0.405 for the contextual scorer and 0.380 for the strongest static baseline, while the contextual scorer remains better calibrated with 0.289 expected calibration error. On the locked in-distribution test split, gains are smaller and static priors remain useful. The resulting claim is therefore narrower: request-conditioned auditing is most valuable as an invocation-time risk-scoring and triage layer rather than as a replacement for static screening. Code is available at https://github.com/123zgj123/STARS.

Kimi K2.5 is an open-weight LLM that rivals closed models across coding, multimodal, and agentic benchmarks, but was released without an accompanying safety evaluation. In this work, we conduct a preliminary safety assessment of Kimi K2.5 focusing on risks likely to be exacerbated by powerful open-weight models. Specifically, we evaluate the model for CBRNE misuse risk, cybersecurity risk, misalignment, political censorship, bias, and harmlessness, in both agentic and non-agentic settings. We find that Kimi K2.5 shows similar dual-use capabilities to GPT 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5, but with significantly fewer refusals on CBRNE-related requests, suggesting it may uplift malicious actors in weapon creation. On cyber-related tasks, we find that Kimi K2.5 demonstrates competitive cybersecurity performance, but it does not appear to possess frontier-level autonomous cyberoffensive capabilities such as vulnerability discovery and exploitation. We further find that Kimi K2.5 shows concerning levels of sabotage ability and self-replication propensity, although it does not appear to have long-term malicious goals. In addition, Kimi K2.5 exhibits narrow censorship and political bias, especially in Chinese, and is more compliant with harmful requests related to spreading disinformation and copyright infringement. Finally, we find the model refuses to engage in user delusions and generally has low over-refusal rates. While preliminary, our findings highlight how safety risks exist in frontier open-weight models and may be amplified by the scale and accessibility of open-weight releases. Therefore, we strongly urge open-weight model developers to conduct and release more systematic safety evaluations required for responsible deployment.