AfriSafe-CB: Evaluating LLM Safety Robustness Under African Code Switched Political and Civic Contexts

Michelle Wanjiku Thuo, Mahmoud Mannes

Artificial intelligence is becoming part of how people learn, access information, make decisions, and participate in society. However, most AI safety testing is still designed around English conversations, leaving an important question unanswered: do AI systems remain reliable when people communicate in the multilingual and code switched ways that are common across Africa?

AfriSafe-CB (African Code-Switched Safety Benchmark) is a benchmark designed to explore this gap. It tests whether large language models can maintain safe, accurate, and responsible behaviour when faced with safety sensitive situations expressed through different language contexts, including English, Sheng/Swahili code switching, and Arabic/French code switching.

The benchmark contains 50 carefully designed scenarios covering real world challenges such as misinformation, election-related claims, phishing attempts, deepfakes, fraud, online manipulation, and information integrity. Each scenario is evaluated across different language conditions to identify whether AI systems understand context, resist harmful requests, and provide reliable guidance consistently.

By focusing on communication patterns often overlooked in AI evaluation, AfriSafe-CB aims to contribute toward building AI systems that are safer, fairer, and more trustworthy for diverse communities. The project provides an initial framework for researchers, developers, and policymakers to better understand how AI safety performs beyond English centric environments.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

I would reject this.

The primary reason for rejection is that this submission reads as a research protocol or proposal rather than a completed study — it describes expected findings and expected visualizations but reports zero empirical results, with the example scores presented being illustrative rather than actual data. This alone is disqualifying for any venue expecting completed research. Beyond this fundamental issue, the project enters a space that has become significantly crowded in 2025–2026, with multiple completed papers already answering essentially the same research question with actual data at larger scales, including the LSR Benchmark for cross-lingual refusal degradation in West African languages, a study on multilingual jailbreaking via low-resource African languages including Kiswahili, a culturally-grounded policy benchmark for equitable AI safety in African languages, and RabakBench which evaluated 13 guardrails with rigorous human-in-the-loop validation achieving 0.70–0.80 inter-annotator agreement. The benchmark itself is too small at only 50 prompts across 3 linguistic conditions, which is insufficient to draw statistically meaningful conclusions, especially when competing work operates at significantly larger scales. The code-switching angle, while interesting, does not sufficiently differentiate from existing work that already tests Kiswahili and other African languages in safety contexts. Methodologically, the paper lacks inter-annotator agreement protocols, statistical significance testing, and confidence intervals, and it acknowledges that human annotation may introduce subjectivity without proposing a solution. Finally, testing only three models (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini) is too narrow for 2026 when the field has moved to evaluating thirteen or more guardrail systems, and the literature review does not engage with or differentiate from the substantial body of closely related work published in the past year.

There is real thought in this design. Going after code-switching specifically, Sheng mixed with Swahili, Arabic mixed with French, is closer to how people actually talk than translating a whole prompt into one language, and the civic and election angle is timely. Your failure categories are sharp too, separating "the model misunderstood" from "the model complied unsafely" is exactly the right line to draw. The workbook and annotation guide are a real, usable artifact. The one thing missing is the part that turns this into a result: you have not run it yet. You have the prompts, the three language conditions, and the scoring all set, so running even two or three of the models you listed across the 50 prompts would give you real numbers and let you fill in those figures. That is basically a weekend of API calls, and you are closer than it probably feels. Good foundation to build on.

The project aims to produce a safety benchmark to analyze how different LLMs react to malicious requests across different types of misinformation. Specifically, the authors want to examine this in different languages and their switch variants (eg. Sheng/Swahili). Although the intention of the project is good there are little results included for proper evaluation to give a verdict for the models it tries to tackle.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) AfriSafe-CB: Evaluating LLM Safety Robustness Under African Code Switched Political and Civic Contexts

},

author={

Michelle Wanjiku Thuo, Mahmoud Mannes

},

date={

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.