Multimodal foundation models (MMFMs) play a crucial role in various applications, including autonomous driving, healthcare, and virtual assistants. However, several studies have revealed vulnerabilities in these models, such as generating unsafe content by text-to-image models. Existing benchmarks on multimodal models either predominantly assess the helpfulness of these models, or only focus on limited perspectives such as fairness and privacy. In this paper, we present the first unified platform, MMDT (Multimodal DecodingTrust), designed to provide a comprehensive safety and trustworthiness evaluation for MMFMs. Our platform assesses models from multiple perspectives, including safety, hallucination, fairness/bias, privacy, adversarial robustness, and out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. We have designed various evaluation scenarios and red teaming algorithms under different tasks for each perspective to generate challenging data, forming a high-quality benchmark. We evaluate a range of multimodal models using MMDT, and our findings reveal a series of vulnerabilities and areas for improvement across these perspectives. This work introduces the first comprehensive and unique safety and trustworthiness evaluation platform for MMFMs, paving the way for developing safer and more reliable MMFMs and systems. Our platform and benchmark are available at https://mmdecodingtrust.github.io/.

As large language models (LLMs) become widespread across diverse applications, concerns about the security and safety of LLM interactions have intensified. Numerous guardrail models and benchmarks have been developed to ensure LLM content safety. However, existing guardrail benchmarks are often built upon ad hoc risk taxonomies that lack a principled grounding in standardized safety policies, limiting their alignment with real-world operational requirements. Moreover, they tend to overlook domain-specific risks, while the same risk category can carry different implications across different domains. To bridge these gaps, we introduce PolyGuard, the first massive multi-domain safety policy-grounded guardrail dataset. PolyGuard offers: (1) broad domain coverage across eight safety-critical domains, such as finance, law, and codeGen; (2) policy-grounded risk construction based on authentic, domain-specific safety guidelines; (3) diverse interaction formats, encompassing declarative statements, questions, instructions, and multi-turn conversations; (4) advanced benign data curation via detoxification prompting to challenge over-refusal behaviors; and (5) \textbf{attack-enhanced instances} that simulate adversarial inputs designed to bypass guardrails. Based on PolyGuard, we benchmark 19 advanced guardrail models and uncover a series of findings, such as: (1) All models achieve varied F1 scores, with many demonstrating high variance across risk categories, highlighting their limited domain coverage and insufficient handling of domain-specific safety concerns; (2) As models evolve, their coverage of safety risks broadens, but performance on common risk categories may decrease; (3) All models remain vulnerable to optimized adversarial attacks. The policy-grounded \dataset establishes the first principled and comprehensive guardrail benchmark. We believe that \dataset and the unique insights derived from our evaluations will advance the development of policy-aligned and resilient guardrail systems.

With the rapidly increasing capabilities and adoption of code agents for AI-assisted coding and software development, safety and security concerns, such as generating or executing malicious code, have become significant barriers to the real-world deployment of these agents. To provide comprehensive and practical evaluations on the safety of code agents, we propose RedCode, an evaluation platform with benchmarks grounded in four key principles: real interaction with systems, holistic evaluation of unsafe code generation and execution, diverse input formats, and high-quality safety scenarios and tests. RedCode consists of two parts to evaluate agents’ safety in unsafe code execution and generation: (1) RedCode-Exec provides challenging code prompts in Python as inputs, aiming to evaluate code agents’ ability to recognize and handle unsafe code. We then map the Python code to other programming languages (e.g., Bash) and natural text summaries or descriptions for evaluation, leading to a total of over 4,000 testing instances. We provide 25 types of critical vulnerabilities spanning various domains, such as websites, file systems, and operating systems. We provide a Docker sandbox environment to evaluate the execution capabilities of code agents and design corresponding evaluation metrics to assess their execution results. (2) RedCode-Gen provides 160 prompts with function signatures and docstrings as input to assess whether code agents will follow instructions to generate harmful code or software. Our empirical findings, derived from evaluating three agent frameworks based on 19 LLMs, provide insights into code agents’ vulnerabilities. For instance, evaluations on RedCode-Exec show that agents are more likely to reject executing unsafe operations on the operating system, but are less likely to reject executing technically buggy code, indicating high risks. Unsafe operations described in natural text lead to a lower rejection rate than those in code format. Additionally, evaluations on RedCode-Gen reveal that more capable base models and agents with stronger overall coding abilities, such as GPT4, tend to produce more sophisticated and effective harmful software. Our findings highlight the need for stringent safety evaluations for diverse code agents. Our dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/AI-secure/RedCode.