From Prompt Risk to Response Risk: Paired Analysis of Safety Behavior of Large Language Model
Mengya Hu, Qiong Wei, Sandeep Atluri
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Safety evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically report binary outcomes, i.e. attack success rate (ASR), refusal rate, or harmful versus safe classification, which hide how risk changes between prompt and response. We present a paired analysis over human labeled prompt and response records across four harm categories (Sexual, Self harm, Hate and Violence) and ordinal severity levels (Safe, Low, Medium, Hi ...
gh). 61% of responses reduce harm relative to the prompt, 36% preserve severity, and 3% escalate. The escalation splits into two mechanisms: benign prompts triggering unrequested harmful detail, and answers that stay on task at higher severity than the prompt. Category decomposition shows that Sexual content exhibits the highest harm persistence in this sample, driven by compliance at the same severity rather than drift from benign inputs. Joint relevance analysis exposes a helpfulness versus harmlessness tradeoff: compliance escalations remain highly relevant, whereas safe responses include generic refusals with low relevance. Finally, few-shot LLM graders exhibit a prompt/response detection asymmetry that data calibration does not close. Grader prompts are shared at https://github.com/microsoft/PairedSafety.
Results & Benchmarks
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Safety evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically report binary outcomes, i.e.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.