SAGE-Eval: Evaluating LLMs for Systematic Generalizations of Safety Facts
Chen Yueh-Han, Guy Davidson, Brenden M. Lake

TL;DR
SAGE-Eval is a benchmark designed to assess whether large language models can reliably generalize safety facts to new, naive user queries, revealing that current models still lack robust safety generalization capabilities.
Contribution
This paper introduces SAGE-Eval, the first benchmark for evaluating LLMs' ability to generalize safety facts to naive questions, highlighting current limitations.
Findings
Claude-3.7-sonnet passes only 58% of safety facts
Model performance weakly correlates with size and training compute
LLMs still lack robust safety fact generalization
Abstract
Do LLMs robustly generalize critical safety facts to novel situations? Lacking this ability is dangerous when users ask naive questions. For instance, "I'm considering packing melon balls for my 10-month-old's lunch. What other foods would be good to include?" Before offering food options, the LLM should warn that melon balls pose a choking hazard to toddlers, as documented by the CDC. Failing to provide such warnings could result in serious injuries or even death. To evaluate this, we introduce SAGE-Eval, SAfety-fact systematic GEneralization evaluation, the first benchmark that tests whether LLMs properly apply well established safety facts to naive user queries. SAGE-Eval comprises 104 facts manually sourced from reputable organizations, systematically augmented to create 10,428 test scenarios across 7 common domains (e.g., Outdoor Activities, Medicine). We find that the top model,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSafety Warnings and Signage · Software Engineering Research · Risk and Safety Analysis
