$\texttt{SAGE}$: A Generic Framework for LLM Safety Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19674v1
• Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:01:08 GMT
• Title: $\texttt{SAGE}$: A Generic Framework for LLM Safety Evaluation
• Authors: Madhur Jindal, Hari Shrawgi, Parag Agrawal, Sandipan Dandapat,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces the $texttSAGE$ (Safety AI Generic Evaluation) framework.<n>$texttSAGE$ is an automated modular framework designed for customized and dynamic harm evaluations.<n>Our experiments with multi-turn conversational evaluations revealed a concerning finding that harm steadily increases with conversation length.
• Score: 9.935219917903858
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Safety evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) has made progress and attracted academic interest, but it remains challenging to keep pace with the rapid integration of LLMs across diverse applications. Different applications expose users to various harms, necessitating application-specific safety evaluations with tailored harms and policies. Another major gap is the lack of focus on the dynamic and conversational nature of LLM systems. Such potential oversights can lead to harms that go unnoticed in standard safety benchmarks. This paper identifies the above as key requirements for robust LLM safety evaluation and recognizing that current evaluation methodologies do not satisfy these, we introduce the $\texttt{SAGE}$ (Safety AI Generic Evaluation) framework. $\texttt{SAGE}$ is an automated modular framework designed for customized and dynamic harm evaluations. It utilizes adversarial user models that are system-aware and have unique personalities, enabling a holistic red-teaming evaluation. We demonstrate $\texttt{SAGE}$'s effectiveness by evaluating seven state-of-the-art LLMs across three applications and harm policies. Our experiments with multi-turn conversational evaluations revealed a concerning finding that harm steadily increases with conversation length. Furthermore, we observe significant disparities in model behavior when exposed to different user personalities and scenarios. Our findings also reveal that some models minimize harmful outputs by employing severe refusal tactics that can hinder their usefulness. These insights highlight the necessity of adaptive and context-specific testing to ensure better safety alignment and safer deployment of LLMs in real-world scenarios.

Related papers

• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise. We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• 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)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• S-Eval: Towards Automated and Comprehensive Safety Evaluation for Large Language Models [46.148439517272024]
  Generative large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing with their transformative and emergent capabilities. Recent evidence indicates that LLMs can produce harmful content that violates social norms. We propose S-Eval, an automated Safety Evaluation framework with a newly defined comprehensive risk taxonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T05:34:31Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Safety Assessment of Chinese Large Language Models [51.83369778259149]
  Large language models (LLMs) may generate insulting and discriminatory content, reflect incorrect social values, and may be used for malicious purposes. To promote the deployment of safe, responsible, and ethical AI, we release SafetyPrompts including 100k augmented prompts and responses by LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T16:27:35Z)

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.