The paper introduces DiagSafe, a diagnostic evaluation framework that replaces binary safe/unsafe labels with prompt-level rubrics grounded in AI safety policies. DiagSafe uses a bilingual benchmark with an 84‑label safety taxonomy, comprising DiagBase and DiagAttack subsets, to assess safety and usefulness independently. Experiments show DiagSafe achieves high agreement with human annotations (95.34%) and strong inter‑judge consistency (Cohen’s κ = 0.864), revealing significant differences in unsafe rates and vulnerabilities across leading LLMs, especially in Chinese and multi‑turn contexts.
arXiv:2610.14443v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Model cards, system cards, and safety reports increasingly document LLM safety behaviors, yet safety evaluations typically start from predefined benc...
The paper investigates whether existing AI safety benchmarks, designed for large language models, are suitable for evaluating small language models (SLMs). By testing five benchmark suites on 26 open‑source SLMs with a unified scoring rubric, the authors find that ambiguous judgments dominate, especially for complex prompts and certain architectures. This ambiguity, linked to factors like lexical density and output perplexity, undermines the reliability of aggregate leaderboards and reveals a confound between model capability and perceived safety.
arXiv:2606. 25750v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is commonly performed by querying models with unsafe or jailbreak prompts and judging whether their outputs violate a safety policy.
arXiv:2605. 17173v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models exhibit safety degradation in non-English languages.
arXiv:2607. 01153v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for language models increasingly depend on judgments about ambiguous natural-language behaviour: whether a model followed an instruction, refused appropriately, complied with a policy, or misreported progress in an agentic task.
arXiv:2605.05662v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Current LLM safety benchmarks are predominantly English-centric and often rely on translation, failing to capture country-specific harms. Mor...
The paper introduces SEAV, a verification‑centric framework for evaluating jailbreak attempts against large language models. SEAV decomposes responses into ordered steps and checks both validity and correctness using LLM‑as‑a‑judge and retrieval‑grounded verification. The method reduces false positives by 14.9 percentage points on a strategic‑dishonesty diagnostic and reclassifies 22.1–51.0% of previously successful jailbreaks as invalid across multiple benchmarks.
Safety benchmarks for large language models often assess the risk of a user query, although the outcome of question answering depends on whether the response violates a policy. This distinction is cri...
arXiv:2609.01210v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety benchmarks for large language models often assess the risk of a user query, although the outcome of question answering depends on whether the...
arXiv:2607. 02079v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present HaloGuard 1.
arXiv:2607. 01153v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for language models increasingly depend on judgments about ambiguous natural-language behaviour: whether a model has followed an instruction, refused appropriately, complied with a policy, resisted an embedded command, or misreported progress in an agentic task.
IndicSafeEval is a new evaluation framework that tests the safety robustness of large language models against persuasion-based jailbreak attacks in Indian languages. The benchmark covers ten safety-critical content categories, six persuasive strategies, and four languages—Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, and Punjabi—producing 7,200 adversarial prompts. Experiments show that model safety varies significantly across languages, prompt styles, and risk categories, highlighting gaps in current English-centric safety assessments.