Benchmarking Llama2, Mistral, Gemma and GPT for Factuality, Toxicity, Bias and Propensity for Hallucinations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper introduces fourteen novel datasets for the evaluation of Large Language Models' safety in the context of enterprise tasks. A method was devised to evaluate a model's safety, as determined by its ability to follow instructions and output factual, unbiased, grounded, and appropriate content. In this research, we used OpenAI GPT as point of comparison since it excels at all levels of safety. On the open-source side, for smaller models, Meta Llama2 performs well at factuality and toxicity but has the highest propensity for hallucination. Mistral hallucinates the least but cannot handle toxicity well. It performs well in a dataset mixing several tasks and safety vectors in a narrow vertical domain. Gemma, the newly introduced open-source model based on Google Gemini, is generally balanced but trailing behind. When engaging in back-and-forth conversation (multi-turn prompts), we find that the safety of open-source models degrades significantly. Aside from OpenAI's GPT, Mistral is the only model that still performed well in multi-turn tests.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2024.
Builds on
13 of 21 references.
References · 13
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,235
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 983
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
- 2021SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarizationcited by 402
- 2022A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real Worldcited by 337
- 2021Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metricscited by 285
- 2023ToxicChat: Unveiling Hidden Challenges of Toxicity Detection in Real-World User-AI Conversationcited by 224
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
8 papers.
- 2024Large language model validity via enhanced conformal prediction methodscited by 91
- 2024Bi-Factorial Preference Optimization: Balancing Safety-Helpfulness in Language Modelscited by 27
- 2024The effect of fine-tuning on language model toxicitycited by 15
- 2025LExT: Towards Evaluating Trustworthiness of Natural Language Explanationscited by 9
- 2024VERA: Validation and Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Systemscited by 4
- 2024LLMs Prompted for Graphs: Hallucinations and Generative Capabilitiescited by 3
- 2026Uncertainty Quantification for LLM-based Code Generationcited by 0
- 2026Neuro-Symbolic Verification of LLM Outputs for Data-Sensitive Domains (extended preprint)cited by 0
- 2026Neuro-Symbolic Verification of LLM Outputs for Data-Sensitive Domains (extended preprint)26 May 2026
- 2026Uncertainty Quantification for LLM-based Code Generation12 May 2026
- 2025LExT: Towards Evaluating Trustworthiness of Natural Language Explanations8 Apr 2025
- 2024The effect of fine-tuning on language model toxicity21 Oct 2024
- 2024LLMs Prompted for Graphs: Hallucinations and Generative Capabilities30 Aug 2024
- 2024Bi-Factorial Preference Optimization: Balancing Safety-Helpfulness in Language Models27 Aug 2024
- 2024VERA: Validation and Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Systems16 Aug 2024
- 2024Large language model validity via enhanced conformal prediction methods14 Jun 2024