OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20947v5
• Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:44:25 GMT
• Title: OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models
• Authors: Justin Cui, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ion Stoica, Cho-Jui Hsieh,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) require careful safety alignment to prevent malicious outputs.<n>This study proposes a novel method for automatically generating large-scale over-refusal datasets.<n>We introduce OR-Bench, the first large-scale over-refusal benchmark.
• Score: 65.34666117785179
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) require careful safety alignment to prevent malicious outputs. While significant research focuses on mitigating harmful content generation, the enhanced safety often come with the side effect of over-refusal, where LLMs may reject innocuous prompts and become less helpful. Although the issue of over-refusal has been empirically observed, a systematic measurement is challenging due to the difficulty of crafting prompts that can elicit the over-refusal behaviors of LLMs. This study proposes a novel method for automatically generating large-scale over-refusal datasets. Leveraging this technique, we introduce OR-Bench, the first large-scale over-refusal benchmark. OR-Bench comprises 80,000 over-refusal prompts across 10 common rejection categories, a subset of around 1,000 hard prompts that are challenging even for state-of-the-art LLMs, and an additional 600 toxic prompts to prevent indiscriminate responses. We then conduct a comprehensive study to measure the over-refusal of 32 popular LLMs across 8 model families. Our datasets are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/bench-llms and our codebase is open-sourced at https://github.com/justincui03/or-bench. We hope this benchmark can help the community develop better safety aligned models.

Related papers

• Maybe I Should Not Answer That, but... Do LLMs Understand The Safety of Their Inputs? [0.836362570897926]
  We investigate existing methods for such generalization and find them insufficient. To avoid performance degradation and preserve safe performance, we advocate for a two-step framework. We find that the final hidden state for the last token is enough to provide robust performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T10:31:50Z)
• Look Before You Leap: Enhancing Attention and Vigilance Regarding Harmful Content with GuidelineLLM [53.79753074854936]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly vulnerable to emerging jailbreak attacks.<n>This vulnerability poses significant risks to real-world applications.<n>We propose a novel defensive paradigm called GuidelineLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T12:42:33Z)
• SG-Bench: Evaluating LLM Safety Generalization Across Diverse Tasks and Prompt Types [21.683010095703832]
  We develop a novel benchmark to assess the generalization of large language model (LLM) safety across various tasks and prompt types. This benchmark integrates both generative and discriminative evaluation tasks and includes extended data to examine the impact of prompt engineering and jailbreak on LLM safety. Our assessment reveals that most LLMs perform worse on discriminative tasks than generative ones, and are highly susceptible to prompts, indicating poor generalization in safety alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T11:47:01Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• MOSSBench: Is Your Multimodal Language Model Oversensitive to Safe Queries? [70.77691645678804]
  Humans are prone to cognitive distortions -- biased thinking patterns that lead to exaggerated responses to specific stimuli. This paper demonstrates that advanced Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit similar tendencies. We identify three types of stimuli that trigger the oversensitivity of existing MLLMs: Exaggerated Risk, Negated Harm, and Counterintuitive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T23:26:07Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
  Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• ALERT: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models' Safety through Red Teaming [64.86326523181553]
  ALERT is a large-scale benchmark to assess safety based on a novel fine-grained risk taxonomy. It aims to identify vulnerabilities, inform improvements, and enhance the overall safety of the language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T15:01:47Z)
• A Chinese Dataset for Evaluating the Safeguards in Large Language Models [46.43476815725323]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce harmful responses. This paper introduces a dataset for the safety evaluation of Chinese LLMs. We then extend it to two other scenarios that can be used to better identify false negative and false positive examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T14:56:18Z)
• On Prompt-Driven Safeguarding for Large Language Models [172.13943777203377]
  We find that in the representation space, the input queries are typically moved by safety prompts in a "higher-refusal" direction. Inspired by these findings, we propose a method for safety prompt optimization, namely DRO. Treating a safety prompt as continuous, trainable embeddings, DRO learns to move the queries' representations along or opposite the refusal direction, depending on their harmfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T17:28:24Z)
• Make Them Spill the Beans! Coercive Knowledge Extraction from (Production) LLMs [31.80386572346993]
  We exploit the fact that even when an LLM rejects a toxic request, a harmful response often hides deep in the output logits. This approach differs from and outperforms jail-breaking methods, achieving 92% effectiveness compared to 62%, and is 10 to 20 times faster. Our findings indicate that interrogation can extract toxic knowledge even from models specifically designed for coding tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T01:41:36Z)
• Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
  This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z)
• Red-Teaming Large Language Models using Chain of Utterances for Safety-Alignment [32.2246459413988]
  We propose a new safety evaluation benchmark RED-EVAL that carries out red-teaming. We show that even widely deployed models are susceptible to the Chain of Utterances-based (CoU) prompting. We also demonstrate the consistency of the RED-EVAL across 8 open-source LLMs in generating harmful responses in more than 86% of the red-teaming attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-18T16:27:04Z)
• Assessing Hidden Risks of LLMs: An Empirical Study on Robustness, Consistency, and Credibility [37.682136465784254]
  We conduct over a million queries to the mainstream large language models (LLMs) including ChatGPT, LLaMA, and OPT. We find that ChatGPT is still capable to yield the correct answer even when the input is polluted at an extreme level. We propose a novel index associated with a dataset that roughly decides the feasibility of using such data for LLM-involved evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T15:44:51Z)

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.