Isolating LLM Lexical Bias: A Curation-Free Triangulated Metric for Preference-Stage Learning

The language used by digital chat assistants such as ChatGPT can diverge from human expectations (misalignment). Research, mostly on Scientific English, has described both what divergences occur and, to some extent, why, linking them to the training stage of human preference learning. Yet, existing approaches rely on manual curation. This paper introduces two curation-free, assumption-light evaluation metrics: the Lexical Alignment Score, which identifies lexical overuse, and the Triangulated Preference Shift, which quantifies how much of such shifts can be attributed to human preference learning. Using PubMed abstracts, continuations were generated and measured using windowed document prevalence across six model families (Falcon, Gemma, Llama, Mistral, OLMo, Yi). The procedure identifies, without manual intervention, overused items such as 'suggest', 'additionally', and 'strategy', and estimates their link to preference learning. Our findings replicate prior work and remain stable across parameter settings, random seeds, and evaluation on further data. The approach scales readily and enables systematic study of lexical (mis)alignment beyond Scientific English and across languages, and as such, the metrics have the potential to contribute to improved alignment for future models and understanding of its origins.

The alignment of large language models with human preferences is commonly achieved through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback or Direct Preference Optimization. However, these methods are vulnerable to the significant noise prevalent in real-world preference datasets. To address this critical issue, we present a theoretical framework for unbiased alignment, introducing the Unbiased Reward Model (URM) loss and the Unbiased Direct Preference Optimization (UDPO) loss. By mathematically correcting the distortion induced by preference noise, our novel objectives enable unbiased model training directly from noisy datasets, without requiring clean ground-truth supervision. We provide rigorous theoretical analyses demonstrating that our methods are noise-tolerant, parameter downward compatible, and classification-calibrated. Comprehensive experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate that our approaches outperform state-of-the-art baselines. Code available at: https://github.com/cswjl/unbiased-alignment.

Preference alignment has substantially improved the observable behavior of large language models, yet it remains unclear what alignment changes internally. Aligned systems still fail under jailbreaks, prompt injection, and retrieval-time corruption, suggesting behavior-level evaluation alone is incomplete. Post-training should leave measurable traces in internal computation. We ask: when an instruction-tuned (IT) model becomes a preference-aligned (PA) model, what geometric structure changes, where do those changes concentrate, and how selectively do they vary across concepts, prompts, and model families? We introduce MENTIS, a geometry-first framework for measuring alignment-induced internal reorganization in paired checkpoints. MENTIS compares IT and PA models using a primary layerwise covariance-based torsion norm (T1), a secondary spectral torsion diagnostic (T2), and an Energy-Radiance-Activation measure (ERA) for depth localization. Across four 7-8B model pairs on LITMUS, our study reveals that alignment-induced change is selective rather than uniform: normative concepts exhibit larger torsion shifts than factual concepts on average; torsion is negatively correlated with contextual entropy; and peak effects localize to architecture-specific mid-to-late layers. The same pattern appears across word-level, prompt-level, and model-level analyses. These results suggest preference alignment leaves structured, depth-localized geometric signatures in internal computation beyond what behavior-level evaluation alone can reveal.