Online Safety Analysis for LLMs: A Benchmark, an Assessment, and a Path Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have seen widespread applications across numerous fields, their limited interpretability poses concerns regarding their safe operations from multiple aspects, e.g., truthfulness and toxicity. Recent research has started developing quality assurance methods for LLMs, introducing techniques such as offline detectors or uncertainty estimation methods. However, these approaches mainly focus on post-generation analysis, leaving the online safety analysis for LLMs during the generation phase an unexplored area. To bridge this gap, we conduct in this work a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of existing online safety analysis methods on LLMs. We begin with a pilot study that validates the feasibility of detecting unsafe outputs in the early generation process. Following this, we establish the first publicly available benchmark of online safety analysis for LLMs, including a broad spectrum of methods, models, tasks, datasets, and evaluation metrics. Utilizing this benchmark, we extensively analyze the performance of state-of-the-art online safety analysis methods on both open-source and closed-source LLMs. This analysis reveals the strengths and weaknesses of individual methods and offers valuable insights into selecting the most appropriate method based on specific application scenarios and task requirements. Furthermore, we also explore the potential of using hybridization methods, i.e., combining multiple methods to derive a collective safety conclusion, to enhance the efficacy of online safety analysis. Our findings indicate a promising direction for the development of trustworthy assurance methodologies for LLMs, facilitating their reliable deployments across diverse domains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".