Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

CHiSafetyBench: A Chinese Hierarchical Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.10311 v2 pith:PFXKAVC4 submitted 2024-06-14 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords safetychinesellmschisafetybenchmodelsbenchmarkcapabilitiesdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the profound development of large language models(LLMs), their safety concerns have garnered increasing attention. However, there is a scarcity of Chinese safety benchmarks for LLMs, and the existing safety taxonomies are inadequate, lacking comprehensive safety detection capabilities in authentic Chinese scenarios. In this work, we introduce CHiSafetyBench, a dedicated safety benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capabilities in identifying risky content and refusing answering risky questions in Chinese contexts. CHiSafetyBench incorporates a dataset that covers a hierarchical Chinese safety taxonomy consisting of 5 risk areas and 31 categories. This dataset comprises two types of tasks: multiple-choice questions and question-answering, evaluating LLMs from the perspectives of risk content identification and the ability to refuse answering risky questions respectively. Utilizing this benchmark, we validate the feasibility of automatic evaluation as a substitute for human evaluation and conduct comprehensive automatic safety assessments on mainstream Chinese LLMs. Our experiments reveal the varying performance of different models across various safety domains, indicating that all models possess considerable potential for improvement in Chinese safety capabilities. Our dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/UnicomAI/UnicomBenchmark/tree/main/CHiSafetyBench.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. o3-mini vs DeepSeek-R1: Which One is Safer?

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DeepSeek-R1 (70B) produced unsafe responses to 11.98% of 1,260 unsafe test prompts, while OpenAI's o3-mini beta produced 1.19%, though the comparison is system-level due to API guardrails.

  2. Early External Safety Testing of OpenAI's o3-mini: Insights from the Pre-Deployment Evaluation

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    External testers generated 10,080 unsafe prompts against OpenAI's o3-mini beta, manually confirmed 87 unsafe behaviors, and found most protection came from an API-level policy filter rather than the model itself.

  3. A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A structured literature survey concluding that reasoning capabilities do not automatically make LLMs more trustworthy and can introduce new vulnerabilities in safety, robustness, and privacy.

  4. The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A structured survey of LLM safety evaluation that proposes a why/what/where/how taxonomy and catalogs metrics, datasets, benchmarks, evaluators, and frameworks.

Pith tools