EvalSafetyGap: A Hybrid Survey and Conceptual Framework for LLM Evaluation-Safety Failures
LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify. This paper combines a hybrid survey - a systematic search paired with narrative synthesis and separately tracked grey evidence - with a conceptual framework and a structured ten-model audit. The synthesis spans eight evidence streams: benchmark validity, dynamic evaluation, LLM-as-judge reliability, safety evaluation, jailbreak/refusal robustness, reward hacking, mechan
Lineage graph
Paper → model → repo connections mined from source citations (Tier-1 exact match).
Why these links exist
Every edge carries a method, confidence, and the source snippet that justified it — so bad links are debuggable.
- LinkedLinked via unknownVerisight →
- LinkedLinked via unknown"Dangerous" AI models are coming no matter what →
- LinkedLinked via unknownInvesting in multi-agent AI safety research →
- LinkedLinked via unknowneval-harness-plus →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 52%What does "Safe AI" look like? [D] →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 53%New Research: AI models can give dangerous responses despite output guardrails - The AI Journal →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 45%wanshuiyin/Anti-Autoresearch →
