Benchmark Early and Red Team Often: A Framework for Assessing and Managing Dual-Use Hazards of AI Foundation Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10986v1
• Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:28:15 GMT
• Title: Benchmark Early and Red Team Often: A Framework for Assessing and Managing Dual-Use Hazards of AI Foundation Models
• Authors: Anthony M. Barrett, Krystal Jackson, Evan R. Murphy, Nada Madkour, Jessica Newman,
• Abstract summary: A concern about cutting-edge or "frontier" AI foundation models is that an adversary may use the models for preparing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, cyber, or other attacks. At least two methods can identify foundation models with potential dual-use capability; each has advantages and disadvantages. We propose a research and risk-management approach using a combination of methods including both open benchmarks and closed red team evaluations.
• Score: 0.2383122657918106
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A concern about cutting-edge or "frontier" AI foundation models is that an adversary may use the models for preparing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, (CBRN), cyber, or other attacks. At least two methods can identify foundation models with potential dual-use capability; each has advantages and disadvantages: A. Open benchmarks (based on openly available questions and answers), which are low-cost but accuracy-limited by the need to omit security-sensitive details; and B. Closed red team evaluations (based on private evaluation by CBRN and cyber experts), which are higher-cost but can achieve higher accuracy by incorporating sensitive details. We propose a research and risk-management approach using a combination of methods including both open benchmarks and closed red team evaluations, in a way that leverages advantages of both methods. We recommend that one or more groups of researchers with sufficient resources and access to a range of near-frontier and frontier foundation models run a set of foundation models through dual-use capability evaluation benchmarks and red team evaluations, then analyze the resulting sets of models' scores on benchmark and red team evaluations to see how correlated those are. If, as we expect, there is substantial correlation between the dual-use potential benchmark scores and the red team evaluation scores, then implications include the following: The open benchmarks should be used frequently during foundation model development as a quick, low-cost measure of a model's dual-use potential; and if a particular model gets a high score on the dual-use potential benchmark, then more in-depth red team assessments of that model's dual-use capability should be performed. We also discuss limitations and mitigations for our approach, e.g., if model developers try to game benchmarks by including a version of benchmark test data in a model's training data.

Related papers

• PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirements [0.0]
  PentestJudge is a system for evaluating operations of penetration testing agents.<n>We evaluate several models acting as judge agents, with the best model reaching an F1 score of 0.83.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T21:52:50Z)
• RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation [71.65938693914153]
  Reward models are used throughout the post-training of language models to capture nuanced signals from preference data.<n>The community has begun establishing best practices for evaluating reward models.<n>This paper introduces RewardBench 2, a new multi-skill reward modeling benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T17:54:04Z)
• Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluated [0.015534429177540245]
  We investigate whether frontier language models can accurately classify transcripts based on whether they originate from evaluations or real-world deployment.<n>We construct a benchmark of 1,000 prompts and transcripts from 61 distinct datasets.<n>Our results indicate that frontier models already exhibit a substantial, though not yet, level of evaluation-awareness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T12:03:09Z)
• T2I-Eval-R1: Reinforcement Learning-Driven Reasoning for Interpretable Text-to-Image Evaluation [60.620408007636016]
  We propose T2I-Eval-R1, a novel reinforcement learning framework that trains open-source MLLMs using only coarse-grained quality scores.<n>Our approach integrates Group Relative Policy Optimization into the instruction-tuning process, enabling models to generate both scalar scores and interpretable reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:44:59Z)
• Quantifying the Capability Boundary of DeepSeek Models: An Application-Driven Performance Analysis [12.79754082920348]
  We conduct a systematic evaluation of the DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen series, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama series, and the reasoning model QwQ-32B. We quantify the capability boundary of DeepSeek models through performance tier classifications. We develop a model selection handbook that clearly illustrates the relation among models, their capabilities and practical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:29:58Z)
• Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark [53.876493664396506]
  Benchmarks are crucial for evaluating machine learning algorithm performance, facilitating comparison and identifying superior solutions. This paper addresses the issue of entity bias in relation extraction tasks, where models tend to rely on entity mentions rather than context. We propose a debiased relation extraction benchmark DREB that breaks the pseudo-correlation between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement. To establish a new baseline on DREB, we introduce MixDebias, a debiasing method combining data-level and model training-level techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T17:01:06Z)
• Scenario-Wise Rec: A Multi-Scenario Recommendation Benchmark [54.93461228053298]
  We introduce our benchmark, textbfScenario-Wise Rec, which comprises 6 public datasets and 12 benchmark models, along with a training and evaluation pipeline. We aim for this benchmark to offer researchers valuable insights from prior work, enabling the development of novel models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T08:15:34Z)
• More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners [42.73526862595375]
  In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress. In product and policy, benchmarks were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions. We conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T03:35:39Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• Exploring Cross-model Neuronal Correlations in the Context of Predicting Model Performance and Generalizability [2.6708879445664584]
  This paper introduces a novel approach for assessing a newly trained model's performance based on another known model. The proposed method evaluates correlations by determining if, for each neuron in one network, there exists a neuron in the other network that produces similar output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T22:57:39Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• When is an Embedding Model More Promising than Another? [33.540506562970776]
  Embedders play a central role in machine learning, projecting any object into numerical representations that can be leveraged to perform various downstream tasks. The evaluation of embedding models typically depends on domain-specific empirical approaches. We present a unified approach to evaluate embedders, drawing upon the concepts of sufficiency and informativeness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T18:13:46Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluators: Are Current Few-Shot Learning Benchmarks Fit for Purpose? [11.451691772914055]
  This paper presents the first investigation into task-level evaluation. We measure the accuracy of performance estimators in the few-shot setting. We examine the reasons for the failure of evaluators usually thought of as being robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T02:31:38Z)
• Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner [47.345760054595246]
  We propose a novel benchmarking framework, Language-Model-as-an-Examiner. The LM serves as a knowledgeable examiner that formulates questions based on its knowledge and evaluates responses in a reference-free manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T06:29:58Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• A Unified Evaluation of Textual Backdoor Learning: Frameworks and Benchmarks [72.7373468905418]
  We develop an open-source toolkit OpenBackdoor to foster the implementations and evaluations of textual backdoor learning. We also propose CUBE, a simple yet strong clustering-based defense baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-17T02:29:23Z)
• BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models [41.45240621979654]
  We introduce BEIR, a heterogeneous benchmark for information retrieval. We study the effectiveness of nine state-of-the-art retrieval models in a zero-shot evaluation setup. Dense-retrieval models are computationally more efficient but often underperform other approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T23:29:55Z)
• RobustBench: a standardized adversarial robustness benchmark [84.50044645539305]
  Key challenge in benchmarking robustness is that its evaluation is often error-prone leading to robustness overestimation. We evaluate adversarial robustness with AutoAttack, an ensemble of white- and black-box attacks. We analyze the impact of robustness on the performance on distribution shifts, calibration, out-of-distribution detection, fairness, privacy leakage, smoothness, and transferability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T17:06:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.