Safety Evaluation of DeepSeek Models in Chinese Contexts
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Recently, the DeepSeek series of models, leveraging their exceptional reasoning capabilities and open-source strategy, is reshaping the global AI landscape. Despite these advantages, they exhibit significant safety deficiencies. Research conducted by Robust Intelligence, a subsidiary of Cisco, in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania, revealed that DeepSeek-R1 has a 100% attack success rate when processing harmful prompts. Additionally, multiple safety companies and research institutions have confirmed critical safety vulnerabilities in this model. As models demonstrating robust performance in Chinese and English, DeepSeek models require equally crucial safety assessments in both language contexts. However, current research has predominantly focused on safety evaluations in English environments, leaving a gap in comprehensive assessments of their safety performance in Chinese contexts. In response to this gap, this study introduces CHiSafetyBench, a Chinese-specific safety evaluation benchmark. This benchmark systematically evaluates the safety of DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 in Chinese contexts, revealing their performance across safety categories. The experimental results quantify the deficiencies of these two models in Chinese contexts, providing key insights for subsequent improvements. It should be noted that, despite our efforts to establish a comprehensive, objective, and authoritative evaluation benchmark, the selection of test samples, characteristics of data distribution, and the setting of evaluation criteria may inevitably introduce certain biases into the evaluation results. We will continuously optimize the evaluation benchmark and periodically update this report to provide more comprehensive and accurate assessment outcomes. Please refer to the latest version of the paper for the most recent evaluation results and conclusions.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 9 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2025.
Builds on
9 of 17 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 8
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
- 2024A Survey on Mixture of Experts in Large Language Modelscited by 233
- 2023Large Language Models for Generative Information Extraction: A Surveycited by 183
- 2024A Survey on Inference Optimization Techniques for Mixture of Experts Modelscited by 46
- 2025Advancing Reasoning in Large Language Models: Promising Methods and Approachescited by 43
- 2024CHiSafetyBench: A Chinese Hierarchical Safety Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 9.
9 papers.
- 2025Towards Reasoning Era: A Survey of Long Chain-of-Thought for Reasoning Large Language Modelscited by 381
- 2025RealSafe-R1: Safety-Aligned DeepSeek-R1 without Compromising Reasoning Capabilitycited by 58
- 2025Safety in Large Reasoning Models: A Surveycited by 58
- 2025SafeMLRM: Demystifying Safety in Multi-modal Large Reasoning Modelscited by 29
- 2025Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilitiescited by 20
- 2025Beyond Safe Answers: A Benchmark for Evaluating True Risk Awareness in Large Reasoning Modelscited by 7
- 2025Safety Evaluation and Enhancement of DeepSeek Models in Chinese Contextscited by 4
- 2025Token-Efficient Prompt Injection Attack: Provoking Cessation in LLM Reasoning via Adaptive Token Compressioncited by 3
- 2025Beyond SFT: Reinforcement Learning for Safer Large Reasoning Models with Better Reasoning Abilitycited by 2
- 2025Beyond SFT: Reinforcement Learning for Safer Large Reasoning Models with Better Reasoning Ability1 Dec 2025
- 2025Beyond Safe Answers: A Benchmark for Evaluating True Risk Awareness in Large Reasoning Models26 May 2025
- 2025Token-Efficient Prompt Injection Attack: Provoking Cessation in LLM Reasoning via Adaptive Token Compression29 Apr 2025
- 2025Safety in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey24 Apr 2025
- 2025RealSafe-R1: Safety-Aligned DeepSeek-R1 without Compromising Reasoning Capability14 Apr 2025
- 2025SafeMLRM: Demystifying Safety in Multi-modal Large Reasoning Models9 Apr 2025
- 2025Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities23 Mar 2025
- 2025Safety Evaluation and Enhancement of DeepSeek Models in Chinese Contexts18 Mar 2025
- 2025Towards Reasoning Era: A Survey of Long Chain-of-Thought for Reasoning Large Language Models12 Mar 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Towards Understanding the Safety Boundaries of DeepSeek Models: Evaluation and Findings
- 2025The Hidden Risks of Large Reasoning Models: A Safety Assessment of R1
- 2024Chinese SafetyQA: A Safety Short-form Factuality Benchmark for Large Language Models
- 2026ThaiSafetyBench: Assessing Language Model Safety in Thai Cultural Contexts
- 2026DeepSight: An All-in-One LM Safety Toolkit
- 2025Quantifying the Capability Boundary of DeepSeek Models: An Application-Driven Performance Analysis
- 2025DeepSeek-R1 Outperforms Gemini 2.0 Pro, OpenAI o1, and o3-mini in Bilingual Complex Ophthalmology Reasoning
- 2026A Safety Report on GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, Qwen3-VL, Grok 4.1 Fast, Nano Banana Pro, and Seedream 4.5