Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces SafePyramid, a hierarchical benchmark designed to evaluate in-context policy guardrailing across diverse domains using 1,000 multi-turn conversations and 3,000 application-specific policies. The benchmark assesses guardrail performance at three difficulty levels, revealing that even the most advanced models struggle significantly, with GPT-5.5 only identifying 54.0% of violations at the easiest level. These findings underscore the critical need for improved guardrail systems capable of effectively interpreting and applying complex safety policies in real-world applications.
In-context policy guardrailing remains a daunting challenge, with top models failing to identify even half of the safety violations in straightforward scenarios.
In real-world applications, guardrails are often expected to identify unsafe user-model interactions according to application-specific safety policies, rather than relying on predefined risk taxonomies. In this work, we study this setting under the paradigm of in-context policy guardrailing, where guardrails predict safety violations based on policy specifications provided in context. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce SafePyramid, a safety benchmark comprising 1,000 multi-turn conversations across 10 domains and 3,000 corresponding application-specific policies, which together contain 61,699 distinct natural-language rules. SafePyramid organizes the evaluation into three difficulty levels: L0 evaluates individual-rule understanding, L1 evaluates reasoning over rule dependencies, and L2 evaluates adaptation of full novel policy frameworks defined in context. To ensure benchmark quality, we employ a rigorous multi-stage pipeline to construct and validate the benchmark. Using SafePyramid, we evaluate 10 frontier LLMs and 5 policy-configurable guardrails and find that in-context policy guardrailing remains highly challenging: even the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, exactly identifies the full set of violated rules in only 54.0%, 35.3%, and 12.9% cases on L0, L1, and L2, respectively. These results highlight the limitations of current guardrails and call for stronger in-context policy guardrails that can reliably execute policies, resolve rule dependencies, and adapt to novel policy frameworks.
