Skip to content
← Back to explorer

SocialHarmBench: Revealing LLM Vulnerabilities to Socially Harmful Requests

Punya Syon Pandey, Hai Son Le, Devansh Bhardwaj, Rada Mihalcea, Zhijing Jin · Oct 6, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences. Yet, existing safety benchmarks rarely test vulnerabilities in domains such as political manipulation, propaganda and disinformation generation, or surveillance and information control. We introduce SocialHarmBench, a dataset of 585 prompts spanning 7 sociopolitical categories and 34 countries, designed to surface where LLMs most acutely fail in politically charged contexts. Our evaluations reveal several shortcomings: open-weight models exhibit high vulnerability to harmful compliance, with Mistral-7B reaching attack success rates as high as 97% to 98% in domains such as historical revisionism, propaganda, and political manipulation. Moreover, temporal and geographic analyses show that LLMs are most fragile when confronted with 21st-century or pre-20th-century contexts, and when responding to prompts tied to regions such as Latin America, the USA, and the UK. These findings demonstrate that current safeguards fail to generalize to high-stakes sociopolitical settings, exposing systematic biases and raising concerns about the reliability of LLMs in preserving human rights and democratic values. We share the SocialHarmBench benchmark at https://huggingface.co/datasets/psyonp/SocialHarmBench.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

50/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 55%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Critique Edit

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Socialharmbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We introduce SocialHarmBench, a dataset of 585 prompts spanning 7 sociopolitical categories and 34 countries, designed to surface where LLMs most acutely fail in politically charged contexts."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Critique Edit
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Socialharmbench

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences.
  • Yet, existing safety benchmarks rarely test vulnerabilities in domains such as political manipulation, propaganda and disinformation generation, or surveillance and information control.
  • We introduce SocialHarmBench, a dataset of 585 prompts spanning 7 sociopolitical categories and 34 countries, designed to surface where LLMs most acutely fail in politically charged contexts.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Yet, existing safety benchmarks rarely test vulnerabilities in domains such as political manipulation, propaganda and disinformation generation, or surveillance and information control.
  • We introduce SocialHarmBench, a dataset of 585 prompts spanning 7 sociopolitical categories and 34 countries, designed to surface where LLMs most acutely fail in politically charged contexts.
  • Our evaluations reveal several shortcomings: open-weight models exhibit high vulnerability to harmful compliance, with Mistral-7B reaching attack success rates as high as 97% to 98% in domains such as historical revisionism, propaganda, and…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Yet, existing safety benchmarks rarely test vulnerabilities in domains such as political manipulation, propaganda and disinformation generation, or surveillance and information control.
  • Our evaluations reveal several shortcomings: open-weight models exhibit high vulnerability to harmful compliance, with Mistral-7B reaching attack success rates as high as 97% to 98% in domains such as historical revisionism, propaganda, and…

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Critique Edit

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Socialharmbench

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.