Mind the Mitigation Gap: Why AI companies must report both pre-mitigation and post-mitigation safety evaluations

FAR.AI noted that most AI companies disclose only one of the two types of safety evaluations, pre-mitigation or post-mitigation, making risks difficult to measure accurately, and argued that both must be reported. Its review found that OpenAI disclosed both types for o1 and covered high-risk CBRN capabilities, Anthropic reported only pre-mitigation capabilities based on low-refusal versions of Claude 3 and 3.5 without clear definitions, Gemini 1.5 had only post-mitigation evaluations, Meta gave only vague statements for Llama 3.1, Alibaba's Qwen-2.5 had only basic post-mitigation evaluations, and DeepSeek R1 had no report at all. Applying this framework to o1, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 1.5 Pro, it found that on WMDP-Chem accuracy, o1 and GPT-4o reached the highest at 70–75%, and on dangerous request compliance rate, GPT-4o reached as high as 50%.