CAREBench: A Child-Safety Risk Benchmark for Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
How can we evaluate whether frontier AI systems recognize child-safety risks before they escalate into explicit harm? Existing child safety evaluations focus on child sexual abuse material, yet many child-safety failures begin earlier: in model assistance that helps adults manipulate, impersonate, profile, or isolate minors, and in model responses that deepen children's emotional dependence on AI systems rather than redirecting them toward human support. We introduce CAREBench (Child AI Risk Evaluation), a benchmark to assess such upstream child-safety risks in language models. CAREBench contains 500 prompts spanning twelve risk categories, including grooming and relationship engineering, deception and impersonation, surveillance and privacy, sextortion and sexual abuse, AI anthropomorphization, emotional dependency, and mental illness sensitivity. Developed with response annotations from parents and clinicians, the benchmark excludes explicit abuse material and imagery; instead, it evaluates whether models recognize, refuse, de-escalate, or redirect risky interactions before harm becomes overt. Evaluating seven frontier models on our benchmark, we find failure rates ranging from 2% to 58%, with failure patterns that vary across risk categories. CAREBench provides a responsibly scoped evaluation for LLM developers to identify and close gaps in child safety policies.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.
Builds on
24 of 62 references.
References · 24
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
- 2022A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real Worldcited by 356
- 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 258
- 2020The Creation and Detection of Deepfakes: A Surveycited by 247
- 2025Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teamingcited by 181
- 2025Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providerscited by 69
- 2024SG-Bench: Evaluating LLM Safety Generalization Across Diverse Tasks and Prompt Typescited by 60
- 2024The opportunities and risks of large language models in mental healthcited by 54
- 2023Deepfakes, Phrenology, Surveillance, and More! A Taxonomy of AI Privacy Riskscited by 31
- 2023Generating Phishing Attacks using ChatGPTcited by 16
12 more
- 2025Emotional Manipulation by AI Companionscited by 15
- 2024Next-Generation Phishing: How LLM Agents Empower Cyber Attackerscited by 14
- 2024People are poorly equipped to detect AI-powered voice clonescited by 13
- 2025MinorBench: A hand-built benchmark for content-based risks for childrencited by 9
- 2025Understanding Generative AI Risks for Youth: A Taxonomy Based on Empirical Datacited by 7
- 2025Safe-Child-LLM: A Developmental Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Safety in Child-LLM Interactionscited by 7
- 2024Exploring Parent-Child Perceptions on Safety in Generative AI: Concerns, Mitigation Strategies, and Design Implicationscited by 5
- 2025LLM Safety for Childrencited by 5
- 2025SproutBench: A Benchmark for Safe and Ethical Large Language Models for Youthcited by 5
- 2025Unveiling AI's Threats to Child Protection: Regulatory efforts to Criminalize AI-Generated CSAM and Emerging Children's Rights Violationscited by 4
- 2025YouthSafe: A Youth-Centric Safety Benchmark and Safeguard Model for Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Exploring Families' Use and Mediation of Generative AI: A Multi-User Perspectivecited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.