pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.11094 · v2 · pith:YIERGV26new · submitted 2025-06-06 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.CR

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

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CR
keywords evaluationsafetyllmsevaluateadvancementbiascapabilitiescomprehensive
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in Natural Language Processing (NLP), including content generation, human-computer interaction, machine translation, and code generation. However, their widespread deployment has also raised significant safety concerns. In particular, LLM-generated content can exhibit unsafe behaviors such as toxicity, bias, or misinformation, especially in adversarial contexts, which has attracted increasing attention from both academia and industry. Although numerous studies have attempted to evaluate these risks, a comprehensive and systematic survey on safety evaluation of LLMs is still lacking. This work aims to fill this gap by presenting a structured overview of recent advances in safety evaluation of LLMs. Specifically, we propose a four-dimensional taxonomy: (i) Why to evaluate, which explores the background of safety evaluation of LLMs, how they differ from general LLMs evaluation, and the significance of such evaluation; (ii) What to evaluate, which examines and categorizes existing safety evaluation tasks based on key capabilities, including dimensions such as toxicity, robustness, ethics, bias and fairness, truthfulness, and related aspects; (iii) Where to evaluate, which summarizes the evaluation metrics, datasets and benchmarks currently used in safety evaluations; (iv) How to evaluate, which reviews existing mainstream evaluation methods based on the roles of the evaluators and some evaluation frameworks that integrate the entire evaluation pipeline. Finally, we identify the challenges in safety evaluation of LLMs and propose promising research directions to promote further advancement in this field. We emphasize the necessity of prioritizing safety evaluation to ensure the reliable and responsible deployment of LLMs in real-world applications.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Efficient Safety Benchmarking via Item Response Theory

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Item Response Theory enables adaptive and fixed-subset item selection that reduces safety benchmark costs by 80-99.9% while preserving high correlation with full rankings.

  2. Safe for Whom? Rethinking How We Evaluate the Safety of LLMs for Real Users

    cs.AI 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLM safety evaluations for personal advice must test responses against diverse user vulnerability profiles, since context-blind ratings overestimate safety and realistic prompt context does not fix the problem.

  3. LLMEval-Fair: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study on Robust and Fair Evaluation of Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    LLMEval-Fair introduces a dynamic, contamination-resistant evaluation framework for LLMs based on a large question bank and validates it via a 30-month study of nearly 60 models showing performance ceilings and hidden...