arXiv Computation and Language By Chenxi Wu, Zimu Wang, Haiyang Zhang, Wei Wang, Zhijie Xu

SAFARI: An Industrial Benchmark for LLM-Assisted Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

SAFARI is the first industrial benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in automotive hazard analysis and risk assessment (HARA) under ISO 26262. It comprises 3,000 de‑identified HARA cases and tests two tasks: open‑ended hazard generation and standards‑grounded risk classification, using a novel reference‑anchored LLM‑as‑a‑judge protocol. Experiments with nine state‑of‑the‑art LLMs show that while hazard narratives are often plausible, risk classification remains weak (best ASIL macro‑F1 = 0.261), with errors mainly due to missing scenario context and misjudged controllability. "whyItMatters":"The benchmark highlights the current limitations of LLMs in safety‑critical engineering workflows, guiding future research and expert oversight in automotive safety analysis."

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Oct 27

BoardSafety: AI-Ready Data from Manufacturer Documentation for Development-Board Safety

The paper introduces BoardSafety, a benchmark that transforms manufacturer datasheets and hardware guides into a board‑specific safety rule base for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on hardware safety judgments. Each data item pairs a development board and a proposed operation with a safety rule and a ground‑truth label (safe, unsafe, or insufficient‑info). Experiments show that providing safety rules improves model accuracy, while structured‑rationale prompting yields mixed results, indicating that current models cannot reliably assess operation safety.

By Linjian Yang, Xinyan Wang, Kunpeng Liu
arXiv AI
Oct 26

DeepSafe-SciHazard: A Benchmark for Measuring Scientific Safety Risks with Decomposed Harm Scoring

DeepSafe‑SciHazard introduces a real‑world‑grounded benchmark for measuring scientific safety risks, comprising 2,400 hazardous and 600 oversafety questions across 12 disciplines. It defines a decomposed harm scoring system, DeHarm‑Score, that evaluates query severity, refusal behavior, and response‑level risk, further breaking down harm into executability and net‑new risk. An expert‑validation study shows DeHarm‑Score aligns 90.17% better with expert judgments than the best baseline, and the benchmark reveals that deep research agents score 32.3% higher on mean DeHarm‑Score than standard LLMs, highlighting a critical blind spot in current safety defenses.

By Chunxiao Li, Yuan Xiong, Lijun Li, Tianyi Du, Wenlong Zhang, Lei Bai, Jing Shao