KBF: Knowledge Boundary as Fingerprint for Language Model and Black-Box API Auditing

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit systematic biases across demographic groups. Auditing is proposed as an accountability tool for black-box LLM applications, but suffers from resource-intensive query access. We conceptualise auditing as uncertainty estimation over a target fairness metric and introduce BAFA, the Bounded Active Fairness Auditor for query-efficient auditing of black-box LLMs. BAFA maintains a version space of surrogate models consistent with queried scores and computes uncertainty intervals for fairness metrics (e.g., $Δ$ AUC) via constrained empirical risk minimisation. Active query selection narrows these intervals to reduce estimation error. We evaluate BAFA on two standard fairness dataset case studies: \textsc{CivilComments} and \textsc{Bias-in-Bios}, comparing against stratified sampling, power sampling, and ablations. BAFA achieves target error thresholds with up to 40$\times$ fewer queries than stratified sampling (e.g., 144 vs 5,956 queries at $\varepsilon=0.02$ for \textsc{CivilComments}) for tight thresholds, demonstrates substantially better performance over time, and shows lower variance across runs. These results suggest that active sampling can reduce resources needed for independent fairness auditing with LLMs, supporting continuous model evaluations.

Access to frontier large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-5 and Gemini-2.5, is often hindered by high pricing, payment barriers, and regional restrictions. These limitations drive the proliferation of $\textit{shadow APIs}$, third-party services that claim to provide access to official model services without regional limitations via indirect access. Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether shadow APIs deliver outputs consistent with those of the official APIs, raising concerns about the reliability of downstream applications and the validity of research findings that depend on them. In this paper, we present the first systematic audit between official LLM APIs and corresponding shadow APIs. We first identify 17 shadow APIs that have been utilized in 187 academic papers, with the most popular one reaching more than 5,900 citations and 58,000 GitHub stars by December 6, 2025. Through multidimensional auditing of three representative shadow APIs across utility, safety, and model verification, we uncover widespread behavioral inconsistency and fingerprint-based evidence consistent with deceptive model claims in a subset of audited endpoints. Specifically, we reveal performance divergence reaching up to 47.21%, significant unpredictability in safety behaviors, and identity verification failures in 45.83% of fingerprint tests. These practices critically undermine the reproducibility and validity of scientific research, harm the interests of shadow API users, and damage the reputation of official model providers. By the time of writing, 4 of the 17 providers have already ceased operations, underscoring the operational volatility of this market. Meanwhile, unverifiable compliance claims and independent model-substitution testing platforms have emerged in the ecosystem, reflecting growing community awareness of this risk.

Black-box model attribution is increasingly relevant when large language models (LLMs) are served through relay and reseller APIs. A tempting low-cost signal is the prompt-token count returned by an OpenAI-compatible endpoint: two models that share a tokenizer and chat template may produce the same count sequence up to a fixed offset. Yet the validity of this signal for broader \emph{model-family} attribution has received little direct holdout testing. We conduct a frozen-threshold study over 24 labeled endpoint pairs, split evenly into a development set and an untouched holdout set, with three temporal repeats and 30 controlled texts per pair. We introduce a validity-gated result contract that distinguishes an observed dissimilarity from an uninformative measurement caused by missing usage data, rate limits, or endpoint policy. The resulting shift-invariant exact-match score perfectly separates the 12 development pairs, yielding a frozen threshold of 0.725. On holdout, however, only 6 of 12 pairs are eligible under the pre-specified three-repeat rule. Among eligible pairs, balanced accuracy is 0.75, sensitivity is 0.50 (95% Wilson interval 0.15--0.85), and specificity is 1.00 (0.342--1.00). Two same-family pairs---Qwen 3.8 and DeepSeek V4 variants---fall below the frozen threshold. Across 4,320 formal API calls, every log is replayable, while holdout contains 189 non-200 responses and 157 successful responses without prompt-token usage. The study therefore validates token-count consistency as a fingerprint of a shared \emph{tokenization stack}, but rejects its use as a standalone necessary test for model-family lineage.