EvalSafetyGap: A Hybrid Survey and Conceptual Framework for LLM Evaluation-Safety Failures

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.30219v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 12:33:06 GMT
• Title: EvalSafetyGap: A Hybrid Survey and Conceptual Framework for LLM Evaluation-Safety Failures
• Abstract summary: This paper combines a systematic search paired with narrative synthesis and separately tracked grey evidence.<n>The synthesis spans eight evidence streams: benchmark validity, dynamic evaluation, safety evaluation, jailbreak/refusal robustness, reward hacking, mechanistic interpretability, and governance/auditability.<n>The contribution is a shared vocabulary and evidence map to support dynamic evaluation, transparent source reporting, multi-attempt safety measurement, and auditable alignment practice.
• Score: 0.6588840794922407
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify. This paper combines a hybrid survey - a systematic search paired with narrative synthesis and separately tracked grey evidence - with a conceptual framework and a structured ten-model audit. The synthesis spans eight evidence streams: benchmark validity, dynamic evaluation, LLM-as-judge reliability, safety evaluation, jailbreak/refusal robustness, reward hacking, mechanistic interpretability, and governance/auditability, covering 2018-2026 evaluation-safety measurement work. We introduce EvalSafetyGap as an organizing hypothesis for comparing evaluation-side and alignment-side proxy failures under optimization pressure, using Goodhart's Law together with two constructs we develop here - an Instability Decomposition and an Alignment Trilemma - as tools for generating testable comparisons. The audit shows how conclusions shift when capability, behavioral safety, and governance are measured separately. In this sample (n = 10), the association between capability and sustained adversarial robustness is statistically indeterminate using the displayed Table 3 inputs (Pearson r = +0.232, p = 0.520), and the apparent open-closed safety gap is modest, driven mainly by governance and disclosure rather than behavioral robustness, and sensitive to how a single borderline model is classified; attempt-budget results are protocol dependent. Because the public evidence uses heterogeneous protocols, the audit is diagnostic rather than rank-generating. The contribution is a shared vocabulary and evidence map to support dynamic evaluation, transparent source reporting, multi-attempt safety measurement, and auditable alignment practice.

Related papers

• aiXamine: Unified Black-Box Evaluation of Cross-Dimensional Trade-offs in LLM Safety, Security, and Privacy [6.323488051975665]
  AiXamine is a unified black-box platform that evaluates trustworthiness across safety, security, and privacy as interdependent properties.<n>AiXamine orchestrates 46 tests across nine services through an automated red-teaming pipeline.<n>We conduct the largest joint safety, security, and privacy study to date and uncover three cross-dimensional phenomena invisible to single-axis evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T20:33:35Z)
• Conformal Reliability: A New Evaluation Metric for Conditional Generation [62.761166941396844]
  Conditional generative models have recently remarkable success in various applications.<n>We propose a novel evaluation metric called reliability based on prediction set at a pre-specified confidence level.<n>We introduce Conformal ReLiability (CReL), a framework that can (i) construct a prediction set and (ii) accurately optimize the reliability score within the constructed prediction set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T03:52:44Z)
• Detecting Is Not Resolving: The Monitoring Control Gap in Retrieval Augmented LLMs [20.59321114618083]
  We show that single-turn diagnostics systematically overestimate RAG safety, that contradiction is uncorrelated with safe resolution, and that no universal prompt fix exists.<n>The gap between what models recognize and what they do must be measured and closed before retrieval-augmented systems can be trusted in high-stakes settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T15:18:43Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Depression Estimation via Disentangled Evidential Learning [50.22167852149165]
  We propose EviDep, an evidential learning framework that jointly quantifies depression severity.<n>EviDep enforces strict information integrity to guarantee robust evidence synthesis.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art predictive accuracy and superior uncertainty calibration, delivering a robust fail-safe mechanism for trustworthy clinical screening.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T13:27:11Z)
• Evaluating Prompt Injection Defenses for Educational LLM Tutors: Security-Usability-Latency Trade-offs [51.56484100374058]
  guardrail design entails explicit trade-offs among adversarial robustness, benign-task usability, and response latency.<n>We evaluate a domain-specific multi-layer safeguard pipeline combining deterministic pattern filters, structural validation, contextual sandboxing, and session-level behavioral checks.<n>Results expose operational trade-offs: NeMo reaches 0 percent bypass at 16.22 percent FPR and roughly 1.5s latency, while Prompt Guard yields 38.48 percent bypass with 3.60 percent FPR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-29T18:52:01Z)
• No Single Metric Tells the Whole Story: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for Uncertainty Attributions [0.31498833540989407]
  Methods have been proposed to explain prediction uncertainty by attributing it to input features.<n>We propose concrete implementations for the correctness, consistency, continuity, and compactness properties.<n>We demonstrate our evaluation framework with eight metrics across combinations of uncertainty quantification and feature attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T17:02:13Z)
• DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics [21.555357444628044]
  We propose DREAM (Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics), a framework that makes evaluation itself agentic.<n> DREAM structures assessment through an evaluation protocol combining query-agnostic metrics with adaptive metrics generated by a tool-calling agent.<n>Controlled evaluations demonstrate DREAM is significantly more sensitive to factual and temporal decay than existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T19:14:31Z)
• The Emergence of Lab-Driven Alignment Signatures: A Psychometric Framework for Auditing Latent Bias and Compounding Risk in Generative AI [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel auditing framework to quantify latent trait estimation under ordinal uncertainty.<n>The research audits nine leading models across dimensions including Optimization Bias, Sycophancy, and Status-Quo Legitimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T06:56:01Z)
• DRAFT: Task Decoupled Latent Reasoning for Agent Safety [59.46137757545185]
  We propose DRAFT (Task Decoupled Latent Reasoning for Agent Safety), a latent reasoning framework that decouples safety judgment into two trainable stages.<n>An Extractor distills the full trajectory into a compact continuous latent draft, and a Reasoner that jointly attends to the draft and the original trajectory to predict safety.<n>DRAFT consistently outperforms strong baselines, improving accuracy from 63.27% (LoRA) to 91.18% averaged over benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T07:45:14Z)
• Illusions of Confidence? Diagnosing LLM Truthfulness via Neighborhood Consistency [78.91846841708586]
  We show that even facts answered with perfect self-consistency can rapidly collapse under mild contextual interference.<n>We propose Neighbor-Consistency Belief (NCB), a structural measure of belief that evaluates response coherence across a conceptual neighborhood.<n>We also present Structure-Aware Training (SAT), which optimize context-invariant belief structure and reduces long-tail knowledge brittleness by approximately 30%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T16:23:21Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• LatentGuard: Controllable Latent Steering for Robust Refusal of Attacks and Reliable Response Generation [4.29885665563186]
  LATENTGUARD is a framework that combines behavioral alignment with supervised latent space control for interpretable and precise safety steering.<n>Our results show significant improvements in both safety controllability and response interpretability without compromising utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T07:31:54Z)

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.