Rethinking Safety Evaluation in Large Language Models: A Research Proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread integration of large language models (LLMs) across diverse domains, from entertainment to healthcare and banking, has underscored the pressing need to address the risks associated with artificial intelligence (AI). Indeed, as LLMs have grown in scale, new challenges have emerged, including privacy breaches, dissemination of misinformation, issues related to robustness and alignment, and concerns regarding the societal biases ingrained in these models. In response, there has been a surge in research focused on responsible AI and AI safety. To address these challenges, recent literature has introduced novel techniques for mitigating the risks associated with LLMs and testing the efficacy of safety protocols through red-teaming. Despite these efforts, concerns persist regarding the perpetuation of biases in next-generation LLMs and the lack of robustness in existing safety measures. Additionally, recent studies have highlighted the tendency of safety safeguards to over-fit certain keywords or identity terms, raising questions about their effectiveness in real-world scenarios. In this thesis proposal, we look at common evaluation practices in LLMs safety and their potential pitfalls.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".