Evaluating Metrics for Safety with LLM-as-Judges

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.15617v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 17:24:49 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Metrics for Safety with LLM-as-Judges
• Authors: Kester Clegg, Richard Hawkins, Ibrahim Habli, Tom Lawton,
• Abstract summary: This paper argues that although we cannot get deterministic evaluations from many natural language processing tasks, by adopting a basket of weighted metrics it may be possible to lower the risk of errors within an evaluation.
• Score: 1.93892819796757
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLMs (Large Language Models) are increasingly used in text processing pipelines to intelligently respond to a variety of inputs and generation tasks. This raises the possibility of replacing human roles that bottleneck existing information flows, either due to insufficient staff or process complexity. However, LLMs make mistakes and some processing roles are safety critical. For example, triaging post-operative care to patients based on hospital referral letters, or updating site access schedules in nuclear facilities for work crews. If we want to introduce LLMs into critical information flows that were previously performed by humans, how can we make them safe and reliable? Rather than make performative claims about augmented generation frameworks or graph-based techniques, this paper argues that the safety argument should focus on the type of evidence we get from evaluation points in LLM processes, particularly in frameworks that employ LLM-as-Judges (LaJ) evaluators. This paper argues that although we cannot get deterministic evaluations from many natural language processing tasks, by adopting a basket of weighted metrics it may be possible to lower the risk of errors within an evaluation, use context sensitivity to define error severity and design confidence thresholds that trigger human review of critical LaJ judgments when concordance across evaluators is low.

Related papers

• AgentAuditor: Human-Level Safety and Security Evaluation for LLM Agents [48.925168866726814]
  AgentAuditor is a universal, training-free, memory-augmented reasoning framework.<n>ASSEBench is the first benchmark designed to check how well LLM-based evaluators can spot both safety risks and security threats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T17:10:23Z)
• 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.<n>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)
• Evaluation of LLM Vulnerabilities to Being Misused for Personalized Disinformation Generation [0.5070610131852027]
  Large language models (LLMs) can be effectively misused for generating disinformation news articles following predefined narratives.<n>This study fills this gap by evaluating vulnerabilities of recent open and closed LLMs, and their willingness to generate personalized disinformation news articles in English.<n>Our results demonstrate the need for stronger safety-filters and disclaimers, as those are not properly functioning in most of the evaluated LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T09:48:53Z)
• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks.<n>We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMs [59.596335292426105]
  This paper collects the first open-source dataset to evaluate safeguards in large language models. We train several BERT-like classifiers to achieve results comparable with GPT-4 on automatic safety evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-25T14:02:12Z)

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.