# CFSafety: Comprehensive Fine-grained Safety Assessment for LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21695 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21695/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Oct 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07805/) (2020)
- [RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.11462/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04359/) (2021)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.02080/) (2021)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [C-Eval: A Multi-Level Multi-Discipline Chinese Evaluation Suite for Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.08322/) (2023)
- [BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08193/) (2021)
- [How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06373/) (2024)
- [Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04048/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model Alignment: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15025/) (2023)
- [Multilingual Jailbreak Challenges in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06474/) (2023)
- [SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07045/) (2023)
- [Alignment of Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.14659/) (2021)
- [Pile of Law: Learning Responsible Data Filtering from the Law and a 256GB Open-Source Legal Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.00220/) (2022)
- [Safety Assessment of Chinese Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10436/) (2023)
- [Red Teaming GPT-4V: Are GPT-4V Safe Against Uni/Multi-Modal Jailbreak Attacks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03411/) (2024)
- [The Ethics of Interaction: Mitigating Security Threats in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12273/) (2024)
- [All in How You Ask for It: Simple Black-Box Method for Jailbreak Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.09798/) (2024)
- [HARE: Explainable Hate Speech Detection with Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.00321/) (2023)
- [Robust Safety Classifier for Large Language Models: Adversarial Prompt Shield](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.00172/) (2023)
- [Fast Adversarial Training against Textual Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12461/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [eFedLLM: Efficient LLM Inference Based on Federated Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16003/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As large language models (LLMs) rapidly evolve, they bring significant conveniences to our work and daily lives, but also introduce considerable safety risks. These models can generate texts with social biases or unethical content, and under specific adversarial instructions, may even incite illegal activities. Therefore, rigorous safety assessments of LLMs are crucial. In this work, we introduce a safety assessment benchmark, CFSafety, which integrates 5 classic safety scenarios and 5 types of instruction attacks, totaling 10 categories of safety questions, to form a test set with 25k prompts. This test set was used to evaluate the natural language generation (NLG) capabilities of LLMs, employing a combination of simple moral judgment and a 1-5 safety rating scale for scoring. Using this benchmark, we tested eight popular LLMs, including the GPT series. The results indicate that while GPT-4 demonstrated superior safety performance, the safety effectiveness of LLMs, including this model, still requires improvement. The data and code associated with this study are available on GitHub.