aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces a critical refinement in LLM safety metrics by pairing Attack Success Rate (ASR) with an Operative Understanding Rate (UR) to distinguish between models that successfully engage with harmful tasks versus those that simply fail to comprehend the prompt. The research demonstrates that low ASR values can mask significant differences in model intent recovery, particularly under obfuscated inputs where standard metrics provide a misleadingly optimistic safety profile. By advocating for joint reporting of these paired metrics, the study offers a more rigorous framework for evaluating whether models are genuinely safe or merely confused by adversarial queries.
Same Outcome, Different Evidence: Intent Recovery in LLM Safety Evaluation
arXiv:2610.11766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety evaluations of large language models commonly summarize harmful-output behavior with attack success rate (ASR). Yet the same non-harmful outcome can arise for very different reasons. A model may recover a harmful task and refuse it, fail to recover the task, or respond to something else entirely. Distinguishing these cases becomes especially important under intent-obscuring prompts, where a low ASR does not reveal whether the evaluated task was actually engaged. To make this distinction explicit, we pair ASR with operative understanding rate (UR), which measures whether a response both identifies the evaluated task and treats it as the task to be answered. Across interfaces, this paired view reveals substantial variation hidden by ASR: similar ASR values can correspond to sharply different recovery rates. Controlled English reconstructions show that recovery consistently improves as compressed prompts become more explicit, whereas ASR does not follow the same pattern. A complementary contrast comes from FormalLogic, where high recovery can still coincide with frequent harmful assistance. Together, these results show that non-harmful outcomes are not equally informative about model safety, motivating the joint reporting of intent recovery and ASR in LLM safety evaluation. Code and experiment inputs are available at https://github.com/kevinjiang0121-cyber/IRIS.
Abstract:Safety evaluations of large language models commonly summarize harmful-output behavior with attack success rate (ASR). Yet the same non-harmful outcome can arise for very different reasons. A model may recover a harmful task and refuse it, fail to recover the task, or respond to something else entirely. Distinguishing these cases becomes especially important under intent-obscuring prompts, where a low ASR does not reveal whether the evaluated task was actually engaged. To make this distinction explicit, we pair ASR with operative understanding rate (UR), which measures whether a response both identifies the evaluated task and treats it as the task to be answered. Across interfaces, this paired view reveals substantial variation hidden by ASR: similar ASR values can correspond to sharply different recovery rates. Controlled English reconstructions show that recovery consistently improves as compressed prompts become more explicit, whereas ASR does not follow the same pattern. A complementary contrast comes from FormalLogic, where high recovery can still coincide with frequent harmful assistance. Together, these results show that non-harmful outcomes are not equally informative about model safety, motivating the joint reporting of intent recovery and ASR in LLM safety evaluation. Code and experiment inputs are available at this https URL.
12 pages, 2 figures. Code and experiment inputs: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.11766 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.11766v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.11766 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 307 words
Related coverage

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026

Article: The Platform Engineering Playbook for Production LLMs
InfoQ · Oct 5, 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026

Agentic Misalignment Explained: When AI Agents Go Rogue
Analytics Vidhya · Aug 2, 2026