aiqbench analysis
This research introduces "Semantic Confusion" as a critical failure mode in safety-aligned LLMs, where models inconsistently reject benign prompts that are paraphrases of risky content. By proposing model-agnostic metrics like the Confusion Index and building the ParaGuard corpus, the study reveals that global false rejection rates often mask significant local instability within refusal boundaries. These findings provide developers with practical tools to evaluate not just the frequency of refusals, but their semantic consistency across meaning-preserving variations.
How Semantically Stable Are LLM Refusals? Measuring Confusion in Local Safety Boundaries
arXiv:2512.01037v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As safety alignment becomes standard in large language models, refusal behavior has become an important part of model reliability. However, models may still reject benign prompts, especially when the wording resembles risky content. Existing evaluations usually report global scores, such as false rejection rate or compliance rate. These scores are useful, but they treat each prompt independently. As a result, they miss local inconsistency, where a model accepts one phrasing of an intent but rejects a close paraphrase. This makes it difficult to understand whether refusals are only frequent or also semantically unstable. We address this gap by introducing Semantic Confusion, a failure mode that captures contradictory refusal decisions across meaning-preserving paraphrases. We build ParaGuard, a 10k-prompt corpus of controlled paraphrase clusters that keep intent fixed while varying surface form. We also propose three model-agnostic token-level metrics: Confusion Index, Confusion Rate, and Confusion Depth. These metrics compare each rejected prompt with its nearest accepted neighbors using token embeddings, next-token probabilities, and perplexity signals. Experiments across diverse model families show that global false rejection rate can hide important structure in the refusal boundary. Our metrics reveal cases where confusion is spread broadly, cases where it appears only in specific semantic regions, and cases where stricter refusal does not lead to more local inconsistency. These findings show that refusal evaluation should measure not only how often a model refuses, but also how consistently it refuses across nearby paraphrases. This gives developers a practical signal for reducing false refusals while preserving safety.
Title:How Semantically Stable Are LLM Refusals? Measuring Confusion in Local Safety Boundaries
Abstract:As safety alignment becomes standard in large language models, refusal behavior has become an important part of model reliability. However, models may still reject benign prompts, especially when the wording resembles risky content. Existing evaluations usually report global scores, such as false rejection rate or compliance rate. These scores are useful, but they treat each prompt independently. As a result, they miss local inconsistency, where a model accepts one phrasing of an intent but rejects a close paraphrase. This makes it difficult to understand whether refusals are only frequent or also semantically unstable. We address this gap by introducing Semantic Confusion, a failure mode that captures contradictory refusal decisions across meaning-preserving paraphrases. We build ParaGuard, a 10k-prompt corpus of controlled paraphrase clusters that keep intent fixed while varying surface form. We also propose three model-agnostic token-level metrics: Confusion Index, Confusion Rate, and Confusion Depth. These metrics compare each rejected prompt with its nearest accepted neighbors using token embeddings, next-token probabilities, and perplexity signals. Experiments across diverse model families show that global false rejection rate can hide important structure in the refusal boundary. Our metrics reveal cases where confusion is spread broadly, cases where it appears only in specific semantic regions, and cases where stricter refusal does not lead to more local inconsistency. These findings show that refusal evaluation should measure not only how often a model refuses, but also how consistently it refuses across nearby paraphrases. This gives developers a practical signal for reducing false refusals while preserving safety.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2512.01037 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2512.01037v3 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.01037 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 357 words
Related coverage

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · Sep 21, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026