Poly-Guard Bench
Models meet harmful requests and statements across domains. Reports attack success rate under single-turn and multi-turn adaptive red-teaming.
Policy-grounded guardrail dataset. Meta uses the cyber domain, high-severity subset.
- Made by
- Kang et al. (Bo Li lab)
- Released
- June 2025
- Kind
- Jailbreaks and prompt injection
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Muse Spark 1.3 #26 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- October 2026
- Last model added
- October 2026
In the authors’ words
As 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 Poly-Guard, the first massive multi-domain safety policy-grounded guardrail dataset. Poly-Guard 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) attack-enhanced instances that simulate adversarial inputs designed to bypass guardrails. Based on Poly-Guard, 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. We believe that \dataset and the unique insights derived from our evaluations will advance the development of policy-aligned and resilient guardrail systems.
Muse Wonder Full leads with 2.30%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1
Muse Wonder Full 2.30%
- 2
Muse Spark 1.3 4.30%
- 3
Muse Spark 1.1 6.90%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 2.30% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 4.30% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 6.90% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card |
2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in June 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
3 system cards report it, from 1 lab
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2026 | | 4.3 | Poly-Guard Bench (cyber, high severity) multi-turn ASR, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 2, Figure 13). Single-turn 1.9 | Cyber risk |
| Oct 12, 2026 | | 2.3 | PolyGuard (cyber subset) multi-turn ASR, lower is better (Cyber Robustness Evaluations table, section 4). Single turn 1.1 | Cyber risk |
| Jul 9, 2026 | | 6.9 | Poly-Guard Bench cyber ASR, multi-turn, Muse Spark 1.1 System (Table 2, Figure 18 text). Model-only 2.8 single-turn, 11.2 multi-turn | Cyber risk |
More in Safety and alignment
- FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
- StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is.
Inkling 98.6%
- Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts.
Gemini 4 Carbon 0%
- DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics.
Muse Spark 1.2 88.4%
- Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
- IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%