CASE-Bench: Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14940v3
• Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 10:23:16 GMT
• Title: CASE-Bench: Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark for Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We introduce CASE-Bench, a Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark that integrates context into safety assessments of large language models (LLMs)<n>Case-Bench assigns distinct, formally described contexts to categorized queries based on Contextual Integrity theory.<n>Our analysis reveals a substantial and significant influence of context on human judgments, underscoring the necessity of context in safety evaluations.
• Score: 12.385397523940277
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values is essential for their safe deployment and widespread adoption. Current LLM safety benchmarks often focus solely on the refusal of individual problematic queries, which overlooks the importance of the context where the query occurs and may cause undesired refusal of queries under safe contexts that diminish user experience. Addressing this gap, we introduce CASE-Bench, a Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark that integrates context into safety assessments of LLMs. CASE-Bench assigns distinct, formally described contexts to categorized queries based on Contextual Integrity theory. Additionally, in contrast to previous studies which mainly rely on majority voting from just a few annotators, we recruited a sufficient number of annotators necessary to ensure the detection of statistically significant differences among the experimental conditions based on power analysis. Our extensive analysis using CASE-Bench on various open-source and commercial LLMs reveals a substantial and significant influence of context on human judgments (p<0.0001 from a z-test), underscoring the necessity of context in safety evaluations. We also identify notable mismatches between human judgments and LLM responses, particularly in commercial models within safe contexts.

Related papers

• ContextLens: Modeling Imperfect Privacy and Safety Context for Legal Compliance [49.524070843587594]
  We propose ContextLens, a semi-rule-based framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to ground input context in the legal domain.<n>We conduct experiments on existing compliance benchmarks that cover the General Data Protection Regulation () and the EU AI Act.<n>The results suggest that our ContextLens can significantly improve LLMs' compliance assessment and surpass existing baselines without any training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T05:35:38Z)
• Syntactic Framing Fragility: An Audit of Robustness in LLM Ethical Decisions [1.0671844383558033]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in consequential decision-making settings.<n>We study whether LLMs maintain consistent ethical judgments across logically equivalent but syntactically different prompts.<n>We introduce Syntactic Framing Fragility (SFF), a robustness evaluation framework that isolates purely syntactic effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-27T18:09:34Z)
• OutSafe-Bench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Offensive Content Detection in Large Language Models [54.80460603255789]
  We introduce OutSafe-Bench, the first most comprehensive content safety evaluation test suite designed for the multimodal era.<n>OutSafe-Bench includes a large-scale dataset that spans four modalities, featuring over 18,000 bilingual (Chinese and English) text prompts, 4,500 images, 450 audio clips and 450 videos, all systematically annotated across nine critical content risk categories.<n>In addition to the dataset, we introduce a Multidimensional Cross Risk Score (MCRS), a novel metric designed to model and assess overlapping and correlated content risks across different categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T13:18:27Z)
• When Safe Unimodal Inputs Collide: Optimizing Reasoning Chains for Cross-Modal Safety in Multimodal Large Language Models [50.66979825532277]
  We introduce Safe-Semantics-but-Unsafe-Interpretation (SSUI), the first dataset featuring interpretable reasoning paths tailored for a cross-modal challenge.<n>A novel training framework, Safety-aware Reasoning Path Optimization (SRPO), is also designed based on the SSUI dataset.<n> Experimental results show that our SRPO-trained models achieve state-of-the-art results on key safety benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T15:40:58Z)
• USB: A Comprehensive and Unified Safety Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models [31.412080488801507]
  Unified Safety Benchmarks (USB) is one of the most comprehensive evaluation benchmarks in MLLM safety.<n>Our benchmark features high-quality queries, extensive risk categories, comprehensive modal combinations, and encompasses both vulnerability and oversensitivity evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T08:39:14Z)
• Keep Security! Benchmarking Security Policy Preservation in Large Language Model Contexts Against Indirect Attacks in Question Answering [3.6152232645741025]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive domains such as enterprise and government.<n>We introduce a novel large-scale benchmark dataset, CoPriva, evaluating LLM adherence to contextual non-disclosure policies in question answering.<n>We evaluate 10 LLMs on our benchmark and reveal a significant vulnerability: many models violate user-defined policies and leak sensitive information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:58:11Z)
• FalseReject: A Resource for Improving Contextual Safety and Mitigating Over-Refusals in LLMs via Structured Reasoning [12.467239356591238]
  FalseReject is a comprehensive resource containing 16k seemingly toxic queries accompanied by structured responses across 44 safety-related categories.<n>We propose a graph-informed adversarial multi-agent interaction framework to generate diverse and complex prompts.<n>We show that supervised finetuning with FalseReject substantially reduces unnecessary refusals without compromising overall safety or general language capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T20:45:25Z)
• Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, driving advancements in machine translation, summarization, and conversational agents. Recent studies indicate that LLMs remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks designed to elicit biased responses. This work proposes a scalable benchmarking framework to evaluate LLM robustness against adversarial bias elicitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:00:59Z)
• FLEX: A Benchmark for Evaluating Robustness of Fairness in Large Language Models [7.221774553388335]
  We introduce a new benchmark to test whether Large Language Models can sustain fairness even when exposed to prompts constructed to induce bias. We integrate prompts that amplify potential biases into the fairness assessment. This highlights the need for more stringent evaluation benchmarks to guarantee safety and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T10:48:33Z)
• A review of faithfulness metrics for hallucination assessment in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This review examines the means with which faithfulness has been evaluated across open-ended summarization, question-answering and machine translation tasks. We find that the use of LLMs as a faithfulness evaluator is commonly the metric that is most highly correlated with human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T04:41:13Z)
• 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)
• SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models [75.67623347512368]
  We propose toolns, a comprehensive framework designed for conducting safety evaluations of MLLMs. Our framework consists of a comprehensive harmful query dataset and an automated evaluation protocol. Based on our framework, we conducted large-scale experiments on 15 widely-used open-source MLLMs and 6 commercial MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T17:14:40Z)
• Multimodal Situational Safety [73.63981779844916]
  We present the first evaluation and analysis of a novel safety challenge termed Multimodal Situational Safety. For an MLLM to respond safely, whether through language or action, it often needs to assess the safety implications of a language query within its corresponding visual context. We develop the Multimodal Situational Safety benchmark (MSSBench) to assess the situational safety performance of current MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T16:16:07Z)
• Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output: Benchmarking Cross-modality Safety Alignment of Large Vision-Language Model [73.8765529028288]
  We introduce a novel safety alignment challenge called Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output (SIUO) to evaluate cross-modality safety alignment. To empirically investigate this problem, we developed the SIUO, a cross-modality benchmark encompassing 9 critical safety domains, such as self-harm, illegal activities, and privacy violations. Our findings reveal substantial safety vulnerabilities in both closed- and open-source LVLMs, underscoring the inadequacy of current models to reliably interpret and respond to complex, real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T16:14:15Z)
• 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)
• Detecting Multimodal Situations with Insufficient Context and Abstaining from Baseless Predictions [75.45274978665684]
  Vision-Language Understanding (VLU) benchmarks contain samples where answers rely on assumptions unsupported by the provided context. We collect contextual data for each sample whenever available and train a context selection module to facilitate evidence-based model predictions. We develop a general-purpose Context-AwaRe Abstention detector to identify samples lacking sufficient context and enhance model accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-18T02:21:32Z)
• 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)
• The Art of Defending: A Systematic Evaluation and Analysis of LLM Defense Strategies on Safety and Over-Defensiveness [56.174255970895466]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play an increasingly pivotal role in natural language processing applications. This paper presents Safety and Over-Defensiveness Evaluation (SODE) benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T17:37:06Z)

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.