# ASTRAL: Automated Safety Testing of Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17132 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17132/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2025.

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

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04657/) (2023)
- [Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07858/) (2022)
- ["Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03825/) (2023)
- [Catastrophic Jailbreak of Open-source LLMs via Exploiting Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06987/) (2023)
- [Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07875/) (2023)
- [A StrongREJECT for Empty Jailbreaks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10260/) (2024)
- [R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10019/) (2024)
- [SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14598/) (2024)
- [SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05044/) (2024)
- [SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07045/) (2023)
- [Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13387/) (2023)
- [ChatQA: Surpassing GPT-4 on Conversational QA and RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10225/) (2024)
- [SimpleSafetyTests: a Test Suite for Identifying Critical Safety Risks in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08370/) (2023)
- [SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18927/) (2024)
- [ShieldLM: Empowering LLMs as Aligned, Customizable and Explainable Safety Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16444/) (2024)
- [Bi-Factorial Preference Optimization: Balancing Safety-Helpfulness in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15313/) (2024)
- [WalledEval: A Comprehensive Safety Evaluation Toolkit for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03837/) (2024)
- [CHiSafetyBench: A Chinese Hierarchical Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10311/) (2024)
- [Detectors for Safe and Reliable LLMs: Implementations, Uses, and Limitations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.06009/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09023/) (2025)
- [o3-mini vs DeepSeek-R1: Which One is Safer?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18438/) (2025)
- [Red Teaming Contemporary AI Models: Insights from Spanish and Basque Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10192/) (2025)
- [Is Reasoning All You Need? Probing Bias in the Age of Reasoning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02799/) (2025)
- [Measuring and Exploiting Contextual Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18740/) (2026)
- [RedTopic: Toward Topic-Diverse Red Teaming of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00026/) (2025)
- [A Systematic Review of Algorithmic Red Teaming Methodologies for Assurance and Security of AI Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21267/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained attention due to their ability to understand and generate sophisticated human-like content. However, ensuring their safety is paramount as they might provide harmful and unsafe responses. Existing LLM testing frameworks address various safety-related concerns (e.g., drugs, terrorism, animal abuse) but often face challenges due to unbalanced and obsolete datasets. In this paper, we present ASTRAL, a tool that automates the generation and execution of test cases (i.e., prompts) for testing the safety of LLMs. First, we introduce a novel black-box coverage criterion to generate balanced and diverse unsafe test inputs across a diverse set of safety categories as well as linguistic writing characteristics (i.e., different style and persuasive writing techniques). Second, we propose an LLM-based approach that leverages Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), few-shot prompting strategies and web browsing to generate up-to-date test inputs. Lastly, similar to current LLM test automation techniques, we leverage LLMs as test oracles to distinguish between safe and unsafe test outputs, allowing a fully automated testing approach. We conduct an extensive evaluation on well-known LLMs, revealing the following key findings: i) GPT3.5 outperforms other LLMs when acting as the test oracle, accurately detecting unsafe responses, and even surpassing more recent LLMs (e.g., GPT-4), as well as LLMs that are specifically tailored to detect unsafe LLM outputs (e.g., LlamaGuard); ii) the results confirm that our approach can uncover nearly twice as many unsafe LLM behaviors with the same number of test inputs compared to currently used static datasets; and iii) our black-box coverage criterion combined with web browsing can effectively guide the LLM on generating up-to-date unsafe test inputs, significantly increasing the number of unsafe LLM behaviors.