Benchmarking Large Language Models for Safety Data Extraction

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to access organisational documentation, including standard operating procedures (SOPs), HR policies and institutional guidelines. However, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that rely on free-form rewriting can introduce hallucinations and unstable trade-offs between completeness and conciseness, particularly in safety- and compliance-critical settings. Objectives: To evaluate extraction as a hallucination-resistant alternative to rewriting-based RAG and compare strategies that balance precision, recall and safety across document types and model scales. Methods: We compare multiple prompting strategies, including line-number-based source selection, extraction of relevant guideline sentences with explicit safety annotations, and a multi-stage pipeline that refines draft answers using supporting evidence from source guidelines. Experiments are conducted on documents of varying length and structure, including local NHS acute care and oncology guidelines and UK-wide NICE guidelines, using both frontier-scale and locally deployable models. Performance is assessed using automatic metrics and human expert evaluation of relevance and completeness. Results: Line-number selection achieves the strongest results, outperforming direct copying and safety-focused strategies across both large and small models while maintaining high term recall (up to 95%) and close alignment with source text. Safety-oriented approaches improve precision but introduce systematic omissions, while multi-stage filtering further amplifies this trade-off. Performance varies with document structure: line-based extraction excels in protocol-like content, whereas alternative strategies perform better on more verbose documents (up to 97% term recall).

Large language models (LLMs) suffer from degraded safety capabilities even when fine-tuned with benign datasets. However, existing methods for identifying safety-degrading samples in benign datasets suffer from high computational costs and significant noise issues. In this paper, we propose DataShield to efficiently and effectively identify potential safety-degrading samples. Our key intuition is based on the observation that benign fine-tuning increases the overall response compliance of LLMs. DataShield's key technical insight is to quantify each sample's contribution to the model's compliance behavior as its safety degradation score. DataShield consists of three core components: (1) Compliance Vector Extraction, which captures the LLM's compliance behavior tendency; (2) a novel Compliance-Aware Score (CAS), which automatically identifies the optimal safety-critical layer; and (3) Safety-degrading Sample Filtering, which quantifies the projection shift of training data along the compliance direction. Extensive experimental evaluation on Llama3-8B, Llama3.1-8B, and Qwen2.5-7B using the Alpaca and Dolly benign datasets validates our method's effectiveness in identifying high-risk and low-risk data subsets. We also observe that open-ended question answering is more likely to trigger safety degradation, and corresponding responses tend to be longer. We hope this work can provide new insights into data-centric defense methods. The source code is available at: https://github.com/ZJunBo/DataShield.

In industrial procurement, an LLM answer is useful only if it survives a standards check: recommended material must match operating condition, every parameter must respect a regulated threshold, and no procedure may contradict a safety clause. Partial correctness can mask safety-critical contradictions that aggregate LLM benchmarks rarely capture. We introduce IndustryBench, a 2,049-item benchmark for industrial procurement QA in Chinese, grounded in Chinese national standards (GB/T) and structured industrial product records, organized by seven capability dimensions, ten industry categories, and panel-derived difficulty tiers, with item-aligned English, Russian, and Vietnamese renderings. Our construction pipeline rejects 70.3% of LLM-generated candidates at a search-based external-verification stage, calibrating how unreliable industrial QA remains after LLM-only filtering. Our evaluation decouples raw correctness, scored by a Qwen3-Max judge validated at $κ_w = 0.798$ against a domain expert, from a separate safety-violation (SV) check against source texts. Across 17 models in Chinese and an 8-model intersection over four languages, we find: (i) the best system reaches only 2.083 on the 0--3 rubric, leaving substantial headroom; (ii) Standards & Terminology is the most persistent capability weakness and survives item-aligned translation; (iii) extended reasoning lowers safety-adjusted scores for 12 of 13 models, primarily by introducing unsupported safety-critical details into longer final answers; and (iv) safety-violation rates reshuffle the leaderboard -- GPT-5.4 climbs from rank 6 to rank 3 after SV adjustment, while Kimi-k2.5-1T-A32B drops seven positions. Industrial LLM evaluation therefore requires source-grounded, safety-aware diagnosis rather than aggregate accuracy. We release IndustryBench with all prompts, scoring scripts, and dataset documentation.