Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

aiXamine: Simplified LLM Safety and Security

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.14985 v2 pith:6YQREFMB submitted 2025-04-21 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords safetysecurityaixaminemodelmodelsrobustnessadversarialalignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for safety and security remains a complex task, often requiring users to navigate a fragmented landscape of ad hoc benchmarks, datasets, metrics, and reporting formats. To address this challenge, we present aiXamine, a comprehensive black-box evaluation platform for LLM safety and security. aiXamine integrates over 40 tests (i.e., benchmarks) organized into eight key services targeting specific dimensions of safety and security: adversarial robustness, code security, fairness and bias, hallucination, model and data privacy, out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness, over-refusal, and safety alignment. The platform aggregates the evaluation results into a single detailed report per model, providing a detailed breakdown of model performance, test examples, and rich visualizations. We used aiXamine to assess over 50 publicly available and proprietary LLMs, conducting over 2K examinations. Our findings reveal notable vulnerabilities in leading models, including susceptibility to adversarial attacks in OpenAI's GPT-4o, biased outputs in xAI's Grok-3, and privacy weaknesses in Google's Gemini 2.0. Additionally, we observe that open-source models can match or exceed proprietary models in specific services such as safety alignment, fairness and bias, and OOD robustness. Finally, we identify trade-offs between distillation strategies, model size, training methods, and architectural choices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Novel Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LLMs: Illuminating Safety and Effectiveness in Clinical Domains

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new 2,069-item, 30-criterion benchmark of clinical scenarios shows six LLMs average 57.2%, with safety (54.7%) below effectiveness (62.3%) and a 13.3% drop in high-risk cases.

Pith tools