arXiv AI

From Intent to Action: Benchmarking LLM Safety in Vehicle Voice Command Authorization

The paper introduces a 202-scenario benchmark to evaluate how large language models (LLMs) handle safety-critical authorization decisions for vehicle voice commands. It tests two local open-weight models and three API-based LLMs, finding alignment scores ranging from 40.1% to 89.1% and noting persistent false execution errors. The study concludes that structured LLM decisions alone are insufficient for safety, recommending an independent enforcement layer to verify tool permissions and vehicle-state constraints before any vehicle function is invoked.

arXiv AI
Aug 25

CallScreenBench: Benchmarking Small Language Models as Phone Secretaries

CallScreenBench is a benchmark for evaluating small, on-device language models that act as phone secretaries, focusing on their ability to handle unknown inbound calls without a cooperative task. The benchmark measures owner endorsement through five call-and-note metrics, each paired with counter-metrics and uncertainty estimates, and includes guardedness diagnostics to identify safe, tool‑free proxies. Results across 4‑bit checkpoints of 0.6‑4 B parameter models show varying performance on service, recall, plausibility, and triage discrimination, highlighting trade‑offs between quality and guardedness.

By Jiaqi Gan, Haoyuan Tang, Jamey Z. Liang, Siying Chen, Ankit Raj, Kidus Zewde, Yuchen Zhou, Yuxin Zhang, Simiao Ren
arXiv AI
5d ago

Useless but Safe? Benchmarking Utility Recovery with User Intent Clarification in Multi-Turn Conversations

The paper introduces CarryOnBench, an interactive benchmark that tests whether large language models can revise their interpretation of user intent and recover utility while staying safe in multi‑turn conversations. Using 398 harmful‑looking queries with benign intents, the benchmark simulates 5,970 conversations across 14 models, evaluating both intent‑aligned utility and safety with a new metric called Ben‑Util. Results show that models often withhold information due to misinterpretation, but most can recover with clarifications, revealing failure modes such as unsafe and redundant recovery that single‑turn tests miss.

By Mingqian Zheng, Malia Morgan, Liwei Jiang, Carolyn Rose, Maarten Sap