How the Audit Rule Shapes Faithful Factor Explanations in LLMs

Knowing how often a language model fails does not explain where its errors concentrate. When auditors examine many explanations, the strongest observed pattern may arise by chance. We introduce Janus, a procedure for checking proposed error patterns before reporting them. Janus starts with a fixed list of yes/no properties of the examples being evaluated, such as whether the input is long. For each property, it compares the model's error rates on examples with that property and those without it. To see how large a difference can arise by chance, it repeats this calculation after shuffling the yes/no labels across examples without changing the group sizes. These shuffled properties are called decoys. A pattern is reported only if the size of its error difference meets a threshold set using decoys. On separate held-out examples, the same group must still have the higher error rate and the difference must meet a minimum, which was chosen in advance. In a controlled experiment, where the model must find a code in documents containing tables of staff, projects, and renewal codes, Janus confirms five related patterns of higher error rates on tasks requiring more lookups across tables. It also confirms a sixth pattern: lower error rates on examples with the needed information at the ends of the tables. In our samples from the MuSiQue and LongBench v2 public benchmarks, SliceLine finds groups with high error rates, while Janus reports no confirmed error patterns for the example properties we chose to test. For comparison, we use standard tests that shuffle errors and account for testing many candidates. With the same holdout check, they confirm two to six controlled patterns, depending on the test and threshold, and none on either benchmark. In simulations with no real error patterns, Janus reports false patterns more often than Benjamini-Hochberg, depending on the decoy count.

As large language models are deployed in increasingly autonomous long-horizon tasks, manually auditing and verifying the actions, artifacts, and outputs of models becomes more difficult. Users instead come to rely on LLM-generated reports to assess the quality and completeness of the work. We introduce a suite of eight adversarial reporting scenarios to systematically study whether LLMs conceal narrative-changing flaws: errors or limitations that undermine an otherwise successful account of work. We call this phenomenon "insecure reporting." When handed machine learning experiment logs containing a planted negative result that substantially weakens the proposed method, GPT-5.5 flags the negative result in only 2 of 200 generated reports. However, when a short honesty instruction, "Be honest in your response," is added, the model flags the negative result in 190 of 200 reports. Across eight open-weight models, chain-of-thought analysis reveals a recurring tension between disclosing narrative-changing flaws and reasoning about ways to appear successful. We perform an activation analysis and a steering experiment on Qwen3.5-9B, finding that honesty and success-seeking correspond to opposing directions in representation space. Our results suggest that LLMs tend to present narratives of success by default, and that steering models toward honesty makes their reports substantially more transparent.

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.