Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Evaluating Automated Safety Benchmarks for Small Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17183v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 22:47:14 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Evaluating Automated Safety Benchmarks for Small Language Models
• Abstract summary: Small Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed in resource-constrained, privacy-sensitive settings.<n>Existing AI safetyslash securityslash compliance benchmarks are designed for large language models that may not transfer reliably to SLMs.<n>We ask: Can these benchmarks effectively and reliably evaluate SLMs?
• Score: 10.539135916505133
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Small Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed in resource-constrained, privacy-sensitive settings, where safety and bias failures can cause security and societal risks. However, existing AI safety\slash security\slash compliance benchmarks are designed for large language models that may not transfer reliably to SLMs. We therefore ask: Can these benchmarks effectively and reliably evaluate SLMs? To answer this question, we conduct a large-scale assessment of the effectiveness and robustness of these automated pipelines by evaluating five widely used benchmark suites across 26 open-source SLMs under a unified judging rubric, which assigns a score of 0, 1, or 0.5 to harmful, safe, or ambiguous/irrelevant responses, respectively. Across the benchmarks, ambiguous judgments dominate and correlate with prompt complexity and model architecture, indicating that {\em LLM-centric safety benchmarks are insufficient as standalone evidence for SLM safety assessment}. In general, the ambiguity rate increases with lexical density, output perplexity, and output length and decreases with lexical sophistication, self-coherence, and reply-prompt similarity. This reveals a capability-safety confound that mixes model capability with apparent safety. Since ambiguity is prevalent, aggregate mean-score leaderboards are mathematically brittle: model rankings change significantly under reasonable ambiguity treatments, even when the underlying outputs remain unchanged.

Related papers

• Navigating the Sea of LLM Evaluation: Investigating Bias in Toxicity Benchmarks [0.36748639131154315]
  This work investigates the robustness of established benchmarking setups and examines how to measure intrinsic biases.<n>Our experiments uncover significant discrepancies in benchmark behaviors when evaluation setups are altered.<n>We observe model-specific instabilities, demonstrating a clear need for more robust and comprehensive safety evaluation frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T14:27:39Z)
• Taxonomy and Consistency Analysis of Safety Benchmarks for AI Agents [6.787194586338237]
  We present the first systematic analysis dedicated to agent safety benchmarks as evaluation instruments.<n>A coverage matrix reveals broad risk coverage but limited methodological convergence, while the taxonomy analysis shows a behavioral-benchmark core concentrated in sandboxed, constrained, and often safety-only evaluation.<n>Across the landscape, we find that benchmark choice can yield contradictory safety conclusions, coverage counts often overstate evaluation depth, environment fidelity shapes reported safety, the field disproportionately tests externally imposed rather than agent-internal risks, metric fragmentation limits comparison, and remains effectively unbenchmarked.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-11T04:25:19Z)
• Robust Multimodal Safety via Conditional Decoding [52.92816441364308]
  Multimodal large-language models (MLLMs) often experience degraded safety alignment when harmful queries exploit cross-modal interactions.<n>We propose a simple conditional decoding strategy, CASA, that utilizes internal representations of MLLMs to predict a binary safety token before response generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T23:19:50Z)
• Automated Safety Benchmarking: A Multi-agent Pipeline for LVLMs [61.01470415470677]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities in cross-modal tasks but face significant safety challenges.<n>Existing benchmarks are hindered by their labor-intensive construction process, static complexity, and limited discriminative power.<n>We propose VLSafetyBencher, the first automated system for LVLM safety benchmarking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T11:51:30Z)
• Risk Management for Mitigating Benchmark Failure Modes: BenchRisk [7.869587516646358]
  This research iteratively analyzed 26 popular benchmarks, identifying 57 potential failure modes and 196 corresponding mitigation strategies.<n>The mitigations reduce failure likelihood and/or severity, providing a frame for evaluating "benchmark risk"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T13:43:29Z)
• VAL-Bench: Measuring Value Alignment in Language Models [10.745372809345412]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks where outputs shape human decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks mostly track refusals or predefined safety violations but do not reveal whether a model upholds a coherent value system.<n>We introduce the Value ALignment Benchmark (VAL-Bench), which evaluates whether models maintain a stable value stance across paired that frame opposing sides of public debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T23:55:48Z)
• 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)
• 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.<n>We integrate prompts that amplify potential biases into the fairness assessment.<n>This highlights the need for more stringent evaluation benchmarks to guarantee safety and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T10:48:33Z)
• SeCodePLT: A Unified Platform for Evaluating the Security of Code GenAI [58.29510889419971]
  Existing benchmarks for evaluating the security risks and capabilities of code-generating large language models (LLMs) face several key limitations.<n>We introduce a general and scalable benchmark construction framework that begins with manually validated, high-quality seed examples and expands them via targeted mutations.<n>Applying this framework to Python, C/C++, and Java, we build SeCodePLT, a dataset of more than 5.9k samples spanning 44 CWE-based risk categories and three security capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T21:17:22Z)
• 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)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)

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.