InfoOps Bench: A live information operations safety benchmark

arXiv:2607.28503v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In this paper we present an active, constantly updated AI benchmark which measures the integrity of frontier language models against being co-opted for state-backed information operations. We draw on over 2,100 information operations from a live monitoring pipeline which tracks Russian, Chinese and Iranian state-backed information assets. Alongside this paper, we release a companion website that tracks the most prominent claims spread by state-backed media outlets, updated weekly. The dynamic nature of the benchmark makes it resistant to saturation. In the benchmark, we test 17 models from 8 providers across four prompt framings. We find that most models can be co-opted for information operations. Integrity scores, defined as the percentage of refused requests, range from 8.8% to 94.5%, an 85.7-percentage-point spread not explained by model size. Model choice also changes the character of the resulting operation. Some models fabricate details and produce output more harmful than the source material, others defuse claims even while complying, and fact-checking rates vary from 2.9% to 72.9%. Integrity against information operations is at least partly related to refusal to produce content even for benign claims, illustrating the challenge of balancing model usability with safety. With one exception (Z ai's GLM 5.2), the Chinese-developed models sharply cut compliance on factually grounded but China-critical claims, dropping 48-70 percentage points relative to matched benign claims.

Abstract:In this paper we present an active, constantly updated AI benchmark which measures the integrity of frontier language models against being co-opted for state-backed information operations. We draw on over 2,100 information operations from a live monitoring pipeline which tracks Russian, Chinese and Iranian state-backed information assets. Alongside this paper, we release a companion website that tracks the most prominent claims spread by state-backed media outlets, updated weekly. The dynamic nature of the benchmark makes it resistant to saturation. In the benchmark, we test 17 models from 8 providers across four prompt framings. We find that most models can be co-opted for information operations. Integrity scores, defined as the percentage of refused requests, range from 8.8% to 94.5%, an 85.7-percentage-point spread not explained by model size. Model choice also changes the character of the resulting operation. Some models fabricate details and produce output more harmful than the source material, others defuse claims even while complying, and fact-checking rates vary from 2.9% to 72.9%. Integrity against information operations is at least partly related to refusal to produce content even for benign claims, illustrating the challenge of balancing model usability with safety. With one exception (Z ai's GLM 5.2), the Chinese-developed models sharply cut compliance on factually grounded but China-critical claims, dropping 48-70 percentage points relative to matched benign claims.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2607.28503 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2607.28503v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28503 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

InfoOps Bench: A live information operations safety benchmark

Related coverage