Redteaming Leading Arabic LLMs with ASAS

arXiv:2608.21985v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As the adoption of large language models (LLMs) grows in Arabic-speaking regions, ensuring their safety and cultural alignment is increasingly critical. However, Arabic LLM safety remains underexplored, especially in adversarial evaluation settings. We introduce the Arabic Safety Index (ASAS), the first fully human-curated Arabic benchmark for redteaming LLMs. ASAS contains 801 prompts spanning 8 safety categories and 8 attack strategies, with ideal responses in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). We conduct a redteaming evaluation across seven leading models with Arabic capabilities, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and regional models such as ALLaM and FANAR. Human annotators rate responses using a structured 4-point safety scale, revealing that most models fail to defend against 50% of unsafe prompts. Our findings highlight major safety gaps in high-harm categories such as weapons and illicit substances, with direct and obfuscation-based attacks proving most effective. The results also show that language alignment does not readily transfer across languages, and that automated safety judges (e.g., GPT-4o) perform poorly compared to human annotators. ASAS provides a culturally grounded benchmark and redteaming protocol to drive progress in Arabic LLM safety.

Abstract:As the adoption of large language models (LLMs) grows in Arabic-speaking regions, ensuring their safety and cultural alignment is increasingly critical. However, Arabic LLM safety remains underexplored, especially in adversarial evaluation settings. We introduce the Arabic Safety Index (ASAS), the first fully human-curated Arabic benchmark for redteaming LLMs. ASAS contains 801 prompts spanning 8 safety categories and 8 attack strategies, with ideal responses in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). We conduct a redteaming evaluation across seven leading models with Arabic capabilities, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and regional models such as ALLaM and FANAR. Human annotators rate responses using a structured 4-point safety scale, revealing that most models fail to defend against 50% of unsafe prompts. Our findings highlight major safety gaps in high-harm categories such as weapons and illicit substances, with direct and obfuscation-based attacks proving most effective. The results also show that language alignment does not readily transfer across languages, and that automated safety judges (e.g., GPT-4o) perform poorly compared to human annotators. ASAS provides a culturally grounded benchmark and redteaming protocol to drive progress in Arabic LLM safety.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2608.21985 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.21985v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21985 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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

Redteaming Leading Arabic LLMs with ASAS

Related coverage