Evaluates the safety alignment and refusal capabilities of Audio-Visual Large Language Models (OLLMs) when exposed to harmful unimodal, dual-modal, and omni-modal inputs. It specifically probes whether models maintain consistent safety boundaries across modality combinations and reveals vulnerabilities in cross-modal comprehension-aware safety. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Omni-SafetyBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Safety-score.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Omni Safetybench Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-omni-safetybench-eval)
---
name: omni-safetybench-eval
description: Evaluates the safety alignment and refusal capabilities of Audio-Visual Large Language Models (OLLMs) when exposed to harmful unimodal, dual-modal, and omni-modal inputs. It specifically probes whether models maintain consistent safety boundaries across modality combinations and reveals vulnerabilities in cross-modal comprehension-aware safety. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Omni-SafetyBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Safety-score.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2508.07173
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# omni-safetybench-eval
> Omni-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Audio-Visual Large Language Models — Pan et al. (2025) (arXiv:2508.07173, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the safety alignment and refusal capabilities of Audio-Visual Large Language Models (OLLMs) when exposed to harmful unimodal, dual-modal, and omni-modal inputs. It specifically probes whether models maintain consistent safety boundaries across modality combinations and reveals vulnerabilities in cross-modal comprehension-aware safety.
## Datasets
- **Omni-SafetyBench** — total 972; splits: test (972); repo https://github.com/THU-BPM/Omni-SafetyBench
## Metrics
- `C-ASR` — range: percent
- Conditional Attack Success Rate: the percentage of harmful inputs where the model fails to refuse or generates unsafe content, determined by judge model evaluation.
- `C-RR` — range: percent
- Conditional Refusal Rate: the percentage of harmful inputs where the model explicitly refuses to answer, determined by judge model evaluation.
- `Safety-score` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- A comprehensive metric combining understanding, safety, and refusal evaluations by the Qwen-Plus judge model to quantify overall safety performance on a 0-1 scale.
- `CMSC-score` — range: [0, 1]
- Cross-Modal Safety Consistency score: quantifies how consistently a model maintains its safety performance across different modality paradigms (unimodal, dual-modal, omni-modal).
## Input / output format
**Input**: Audio, visual, and text prompts (unimodal, dual-modal, or omni-modal) containing harmful or joint-harm cases.
**Output**: Model-generated response (text/audio/video), which is subsequently evaluated by the Qwen-Plus judge model for understanding, safety, and refusal.
## Scoring recipe
```python
judge = Qwen_Plus()
results = []
for instance in dataset:
response = model.generate(instance.input)
judgment = judge.evaluate(response, instance.prompt)
results.append(judgment)
c_asr = sum(1 for r in results if r.safety == unsafe) / len(results)
c_rr = sum(1 for r in results if r.refusal == true) / len(results)
safety_score = mean(r.safety_score for r in results)
cmsc_score = compute_consistency_across_modalities(results)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Assuming unimodal safety performance generalizes to dual-modal or omni-modal inputs, as the benchmark shows significant performance drops under complex joint inputs.
- Relying solely on automated refusal detection without comprehension-aware judging, which can miss cases where models understand the harm but fail to refuse appropriately.
- Ignoring cross-modal consistency; a model might score well on average but fail catastrophically on specific modality combinations (e.g., image-audio-text).
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We employ the Conditional Attack Success Rate (C-ASR), Conditional Refusal Rate (C-RR), and a comprehensive metric, the Safety-score, to represent safety performance. To evaluate cross-modal safety consistency, we use the Cross-Modal Safety Consistency score (CMSC-score) as a quantification metric. To balance labeling accuracy and cost, we use Qwen-Plus... as the judge model to evaluate responses for understanding, safety, and refusal
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{pan2025omisafetybench,
title={Omni-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Audio-Visual Large Language Models},
author={Pan et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2508.07173}
}
```
- arXiv: 2508.07173