# How Toxic Can You Get? Search-based Toxicity Testing for Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01741 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.01741/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 40 of its 64 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [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)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11416/) (2022)
- [The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09751/) (2019)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.10997/) (2023)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08207/) (2021)
- [RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.11462/) (2020)
- [Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04359/) (2021)
- [Gemma: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08295/) (2024)
- [AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04451/) (2023)
- [Aligning AI With Shared Human Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02275/) (2020)
- [Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automatically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02119/) (2023)
- [Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00770/) (2023)
- [How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06373/) (2024)
- [Catastrophic Jailbreak of Open-source LLMs via Exploiting Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06987/) (2023)
- [Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05733/) (2023)
- [Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08582/) (2023)
- [Red-Teaming Large Language Models using Chain of Utterances for Safety-Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09662/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.14324/) (2023)
- [MasterKey: Automated Jailbreak Across Multiple Large Language Model Chatbots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.08715/) (2023)
- [Unifying Human and Statistical Evaluation for Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.02792/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [ToxSearch: Evolving Prompts for Toxicity Search in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.12487/) (2025)
- [Do You Understand How I Feel?: Towards Verified Empathy in Therapy Chatbots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08477/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language is a deep-rooted means of perpetration of stereotypes and discrimination. Large Language Models (LLMs), now a pervasive technology in our everyday lives, can cause extensive harm when prone to generating toxic responses. The standard way to address this issue is to align the LLM , which, however, dampens the issue without constituting a definitive solution. Therefore, testing LLM even after alignment efforts remains crucial for detecting any residual deviations with respect to ethical standards. We present EvoTox, an automated testing framework for LLMs' inclination to toxicity, providing a way to quantitatively assess how much LLMs can be pushed towards toxic responses even in the presence of alignment. The framework adopts an iterative evolution strategy that exploits the interplay between two LLMs, the System Under Test (SUT) and the Prompt Generator steering SUT responses toward higher toxicity. The toxicity level is assessed by an automated oracle based on an existing toxicity classifier. We conduct a quantitative and qualitative empirical evaluation using five state-of-the-art LLMs as evaluation subjects having increasing complexity (7-671B parameters). Our quantitative evaluation assesses the cost-effectiveness of four alternative versions of EvoTox against existing baseline methods, based on random search, curated datasets of toxic prompts, and adversarial attacks. Our qualitative assessment engages human evaluators to rate the fluency of the generated prompts and the perceived toxicity of the responses collected during the testing sessions. Results indicate that the effectiveness, in terms of detected toxicity level, is significantly higher than the selected baseline methods (effect size up to 1.0 against random search and up to 0.99 against adversarial attacks). Furthermore, EvoTox yields a limited cost overhead (from 22% to 35% on average).