SafeLawBench: Towards Safe Alignment of Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06636v1
- Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 03:09:59 GMT
- Title: SafeLawBench: Towards Safe Alignment of Large Language Models
- Authors: Chuxue Cao, Han Zhu, Jiaming Ji, Qichao Sun, Zhenghao Zhu, Yinyu Wu, Juntao Dai, Yaodong Yang, Sirui Han, Yike Guo,
- Abstract summary: There is a lack of definitive standards for evaluating the safety of large language models (LLMs)<n>SafeLawBench categorizes safety risks into three levels based on legal standards.<n>It comprises 24,860 multi-choice questions and 1,106 open-domain question-answering (QA) tasks.
- Score: 18.035407356604832
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: With the growing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), the safety of LLMs has raised significant concerns. However, there is still a lack of definitive standards for evaluating their safety due to the subjective nature of current safety benchmarks. To address this gap, we conducted the first exploration of LLMs' safety evaluation from a legal perspective by proposing the SafeLawBench benchmark. SafeLawBench categorizes safety risks into three levels based on legal standards, providing a systematic and comprehensive framework for evaluation. It comprises 24,860 multi-choice questions and 1,106 open-domain question-answering (QA) tasks. Our evaluation included 2 closed-source LLMs and 18 open-source LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, highlighting the safety features of each model. We also evaluated the LLMs' safety-related reasoning stability and refusal behavior. Additionally, we found that a majority voting mechanism can enhance model performance. Notably, even leading SOTA models like Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o have not exceeded 80.5% accuracy in multi-choice tasks on SafeLawBench, while the average accuracy of 20 LLMs remains at 68.8\%. We urge the community to prioritize research on the safety of LLMs.
Related papers
- 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.<n>Recent evidence indicates that LLMs can produce harmful content that violates social norms.<n>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) - SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models [107.82336341926134]
SALAD-Bench is a safety benchmark specifically designed for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs)
It transcends conventional benchmarks through its large scale, rich diversity, intricate taxonomy spanning three levels, and versatile functionalities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-07T17:33:54Z) - LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarks [17.522223535347905]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been suggested for use in automated vulnerability repair, but benchmarks showing they can consistently identify security-related bugs are lacking.
We develop SecLLMHolmes, a fully automated evaluation framework that performs the most detailed investigation to date on whether LLMs can reliably identify and reason about security-related bugs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-19T20:19:43Z) - SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Models [54.878612385780805]
SafetyBench is a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs)
It comprises 11,435 diverse multiple choice questions spanning across 7 distinct categories of safety concerns.
Our tests over 25 popular Chinese and English LLMs in both zero-shot and few-shot settings reveal a substantial performance advantage for GPT-4 over its counterparts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-13T15:56:50Z) - 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.