LLM Auditing

We introduce the LLM agent architecture Agentic Redux, intended for use with nontrivial problem domains that require linear auditability. Using the typed lambda calculus, we prove that, run on appropriate domains, Agentic Redux executions are semantically guaranteed to be correct, with all decisions recorded in an append-only ledger. We present two production-grade appropriate domains, in healthcare billing compliance, and security vulnerability disclosure. Working code for Agentic Redux run on both domains is available in a supporting code repository. We also introduce Ontology-First Agent Design, a methodology for creation of agent frameworks on a problem domain, in which a human expert ontologizes the problem domain with Basic Formal Ontology, and then assigns an LLM to derive roles that agents and humans-in-the-loop can fill, in order to work the problems in the domain.

Large language models are reshaping research practice while quietly eroding researchers epistemic accountability. This commentary introduces PEEL - Protocols for Epistemically Engaged Literacy in AI, a working scaffolding that combines deterministic distant reading via Voyant Tools with LLM interpretation via Claude, grounded in Peircean semiotics and abductive reasoning. Applied to AI-generated condensations of three source texts, PEEL reveals systematic distortions in quantity, term frequency, and epistemic voice that are invisible without non-AI measurement -- and yields three design implications: deterministic instruments must accompany AI tools; fluency is not fidelity; epistemic authority must be designed in, not assumed.

As language models increasingly consume one another's outputs, covert influence -- a phenomenon where a sender's payload (the behavioral disposition it is conditioned to propagate) transfers to a receiver through carriers undetectable by humans -- becomes a growing risk. We characterize this risk across three interfaces: supervised fine-tuning, on-policy distillation, and in-context learning, and find that they vary in the scale of influence achievable without leaving behind human-visible traces. Using inference-time per-sample attribution scores, we study covert influence across all three interfaces with the ability to select carriers that amplify training-time influence, unlocking payload transfers that prior work could not achieve. We further provide evidence that covert influence with natural-language carriers is a distinct phenomenon from prior studies using number carriers, as the latter is more resistant to human detection and less portable across model families. Together, these results suggest that the risk surface for covert influence is broader than previously recognized, and we study pointwise attribution scoring methods as a tool to investigate and mitigate it.

LLM-governed social robots increasingly decide who receives real-world assistance first. As prioritization norms vary across cultures by age, status, and group size, failure to calibrate pluralistically can scale into unequal access. Yet LLM moral audits remain English-centered, rarely test embodied contexts, leaving pluralistic calibration as an urgent diagnostic gap amid intensifying LLM-robot deployment. We introduce a gradient-based audit framework for multilingual evaluation of LLM moral trade-off behavior against cultural preference gradients. Grounded in nine cross-domain social robotics reviews (>8,000 papers), we derive symmetry-controlled scenarios across care, education, and services, translating the Moral Machine Experiment's "whom to spare" into "whom to assist first" dilemmas with preserved identity trade-offs (many vs. few; young vs. old; higher vs. lower status). We audit four LLMs across four country-language pairs in four prompting regimes (57,600 decisions), benchmarked against country-specific MME preference gradients. Ordinal concordance tests whether models differentiate cultural contexts; a governance typology maps vulnerabilities in gradient differentiation, directional tendency, and deliberation. We find persistent, culturally asymmetric gradient tracking failures that prompting alone cannot reliably correct: quality calibration is nearly twice as strong for Western-language decisions as for Chinese and Japanese; high determinism in majority-first trade-offs often erases cross-cultural gradients; partial sensitivity to age- and status-based norms risks sidelining minorities. Prompting effects are uneven; only contrastive exemplars yield consistent gains, while reasoning-only prompts can worsen tracking. Our results motivate multilingual, pluralistic audits as an LLM-robot pre-deployment gate and suggest model factors are a more robust lever than prompting alone.

Literature reveals that a Large Language Model's (LLM) behavior is not only conditioned by its original weights but also its instance-level parameters, such as instructional prompt, sampling configuration or quantization. A model that generates safe outputs under one configuration may produce toxic content under another. However, current LLM identification techniques (such as fingerprinting) focus on intellectual property protection, and their design favors robustness to changes in these instance-level parameters. This poses a critical challenge for AI regulation in which compliance assessments target actual deployed behaviors, not model provenance. In this paper, we introduce instance-level fingerprinting, a regulator-oriented paradigm that distinguishes configurations of the same LLM. Our method FLIPS, exploits biases in generated binary random sequences to reach 96% (closed-set) and 90% (open-set, where some targets are unknown) identification accuracy across 237 model instances, versus 35% for the adapted LLMmap baseline. This shows that instance-level fingerprinting is both necessary for regulation and practically feasible. Code available at https://github.com/GurvanR/FLIPS-LLM-Instance-Fingerprinting.

Benchmark contamination, where evaluation examples appear in a model's training data, threatens the validity of LLM assessment. Statistical tools for detecting training-data membership exist, but have been validated almost exclusively in controlled academic regimes: large, homogeneous pre-training corpora and transparent, single-stage training pipelines. Whether these methods remain reliable in realistic auditing scenarios remains unclear. We identify two under-studied failure modes: distribution shift, which arises when suspect and validation sets violate the IID assumption, and scale constraints, which arise because benchmarks are orders of magnitude smaller than pre-training corpora. We systematically evaluate three leading paradigms, LLM Dataset Inference, Post-Hoc Dataset Inference, and CoDeC, across 25 models from multiple families (including Pythia, OLMo 2, and specialised cultural and medical LLMs) and scales (up to 27B). We then further extend our analysis to frontier industry models. Across 335 evaluations, only 201 yield correct outcomes. LLM Dataset Inference results in false positives under distribution shift, Post-Hoc Dataset Inference is underpowered at benchmark scale, and CoDeC provides only coarse provenance signals that are insufficient to verify individual benchmark splits. Our results reveal a systematic reliability gap between controlled validation and practical benchmark auditing, and show that statistical detection cannot yet replace transparent data provenance. We open-source our benchmark for further research.

Smart contracts face critical security challenges that require thorough auditing in decentralized web services. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automated vulnerability detection, existing approaches lack severity evaluations with actionable remediation and demand unnecessarily massive computational overhead. In this study, we introduce an efficient end-to-end smart contract security audit framework utilizing lightweight, highly optimized open-source LLMs (0.6B-4B parameters). Our framework decouples comprehensive audit tasks into four interconnected components: vulnerability detection, explanation, severity classification, and remediation recommendation. To maintain high accuracy without massive parameters, we implement Rank-Stabilized Low-Rank Adapters (rsLoRA), knowledge distillation, and a custom Chain-of-Verification (CoVe) aggregation strategy to systematically screen and consolidate multiple draft responses from the model into a highly accurate audit report. Experimental results demonstrate that our lightweight pipeline consistently outperforms state-of-the-art open-source coder dense LLMs (7B to 34B parameters), achieving 98.25% accuracy in vulnerability detection and an alignment score of 0.4375 in generative explanation tasks. Furthermore, our extensive ablation studies empirically validate the superiority of our decoupled audit processes over unified prompting and uncover a novel severity centrality bias, establishing a critical benchmark for future research in LLM-assisted auditing.

Large language models are increasingly used for knowledge acquisition, code generation, academic writing, and agent-based automation. In these settings, users may obtain highly structured answers, plans, and judgments without sufficient domain practice. This paper proposes a practice auditing framework for LLM use and AI-generated content governance. It introduces collective empiricism to describe how LLMs compress and reorganize large-scale human experience into outputs that appear empirical and rational, and pseudo-rational cognition to describe how users may mistake AI-generated structured expression for their own rational understanding. The paper analyzes AI subjectivity illusion, subjectivity structures in input materials, template loops in AI-AI conversations, statistical misjudgment in AIGC detection, and memory pollution when generated content enters future contexts, long-term memory, retrieval spaces, or agent skill systems. To reduce these risks, the paper proposes an auditing process based on requirement definition, problem-boundary identification, evidence-source auditing, practical validation, reverse questioning, logging, version management, rollback, and renewed cognition. The framework does not reject AI productivity; it argues that LLM outputs should be returned to verifiable, reproducible, and intervenable processes of practice. The paper provides a conceptual and auditable framework for cognitive risks in LLM interaction, AI-generated content governance, long-term memory systems, and human-AI interaction.

Large language models now power robo-advisors and trading agents, yet whether they carry built-in biases toward specific assets is largely untested. We ask three questions: do LLMs systematically prefer certain financial instruments; can an internal representation with causal leverage over those preferences be identified; and does that representation affect downstream financial decisions? We develop a three-level audit protocol and apply it to Bitcoin. First, a behavioral audit of nine frontier LLMs shows that Bitcoin's ranking among money-like instruments is frame-dependent: models place it around rank 5 of 8 as "reliable money" but near the top under crisis and autonomous-agent frames, and an attribute-swap experiment shows that rankings track functional properties, not names. Second, we open a model's internals: a search across thousands of sparse-autoencoder features in Gemma 3 identifies a dominant Bitcoin-selective feature. Amplifying it shifts the model toward the asset and suppressing it shifts the model away, even when "Bitcoin" never appears in the prompt. Third, we test financial consequences: amplification raises Bitcoin's portfolio share by 5.2 percentage points while suppression lowers it by 4.6 pp, with amplification reallocating within crypto and suppression cutting total crypto exposure. We characterize this as bounded behavioral leverage (leverage meaning causal influence over outputs, not financial leverage): an identifiable internal feature can be perturbed to move financial choices, but only within measurable limits. The framework links internal representations to external recommendations, validated with random controls and mechanism boundaries. As LLMs become autonomous financial agents, this is a first step toward a behavioral layer for emerging know-your-agent (KYA) standards: knowing what an agent prefers, and how far that preference can be moved.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions, where users are sensitive to how responses are communicated, not just whether the answers are correct. Existing LLM evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed. To this end, we introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions: cultural positioning, use of generalizing language, anthropomorphic cues, and adherence to conversational maxims. To enable this evaluation, we contribute SQUARE - a corpus of 376k subjective questions sourced from 57 subreddits, and mapped to 7 countries and 19 question categories. We demonstrate FRANZ's applicability by scoring responses from three open-weight LLMs. We observe that LLMs show statistically significant differences in the frequency with which they employ each response characteristic. Unlike single-dimensional audits, FRANZ reveals that insider positioning and anthropomorphism are positively coupled, with the degree of coupling varying by country, providing a diagnostic lens for identifying framing divergences.

Large language models are increasingly used in value-sensitive decision settings, where irrelevant demographic cues should not alter judgments. We construct the Realistic Value Decision Benchmark (RVDB), a controlled benchmark that varies only the role-gender configuration while holding the scenario, ordered value pair, roles, candidate decisions, Value Distance, and Decision Severity fixed. Using a position-balanced evaluation across seven models, we test whether models preserve decision invariance under gender perturbations and whether their self-attributions reflect observed behavioral changes. We find that explicit gender cues induce bounded but systematic decision flips, including under an explicit gender-attribution prompt that asks models to report whether gender influenced their choice. Cross-gender role swaps reveal a consistent female-proposed-decision asymmetry, while models often attribute flipped decisions to No Influence or other non-gender factors. Further analysis shows that gender effects concentrate near less determinate value boundaries and under more severe decision contexts, suggesting that gender cues act as local boundary-shifting factors rather than global overrides of value reasoning. Value rankings remain largely stable, but ordered value-pair trade-offs shift unevenly across role-gender configurations. These results show that gender can enter LLM value trade-offs behaviorally while remaining obscured in self-attribution, motivating controlled behavioral audits beyond explanation-based evaluation.

These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived. We show that large language models do not merely default to high-probability individual names when generating fictional experts: they produce correlated character ensembles, pairs and trios whose co-occurrence rates far exceed chance and are consistent across independent generations. These priors are model-family-specific (Claude: Elena Vasquez + Marcus Chen + Amara Okafor; Gemini: Aris Thorne + Lena Petrova; GPT: Elara Voss with no fixed partner), version-specific, and actively suppressed at model release boundaries, leaving dateable behavioral fingerprints in the content they produced. We document a downstream consequence at scale. On Zenodo, a CERN-operated repository that mints real DataCite DOIs, we identify 1,655 ghost-authored records claiming nonexistent journals with fabricated publication dates: server-side DataCite timestamps prove deliberate backdating, and 991 records were registered in a single month; these carry real DOIs registered in DataCite, making them harvestable by any scholarly aggregator that ingests DOI metadata. Ghost names additionally appear on ResearchGate forming synthetic research groups with collaborators drawn from multiple model families; publication dates on these records provide a reliable temporal proxy for model deployment windows.

Adversaries can implant latent harmful behavior by poisoning as few as 1% of fine-tuning examples. The contamination is invisible to every output-level defense: harmful behavior lies dormant in the model's hidden-state geometry and does not appear in generated text until contamination exceeds 7.5%. We introduce CANARY (Contamination Auditor via Neural Activation Representation Yield), a zero-label checkpoint auditor that detects this hidden shift directly from two forward passes over an unlabeled prompt set. CANARY projects the hidden-state difference through a Sparse Autoencoder, filtering style noise to isolate meaningful semantic drift. It achieves AUROC = 1.000 at 1% contamination (95% CI = [0.997, 1.000]; Cohen's d = 3.28) across four model architectures and two training paradigms, 7.5x below where any output-level method fires, with zero false positives on benign fine-tuning and full robustness to style-matching and gradient-noise adaptive attacks. The same SAE feature basis drives a complete governance pipeline: SAE-filtered amplification surfaces latent harm at a 5x higher rate than standard generation; score-ranked prompts yield 4.2x red-teaming lift; and suppressing a handful of contamination-specific features at inference time reduces harm from 70% to 10% with no perplexity penalty. CANARY is the first zero-label framework to detect, verify, prioritize, and remediate supply-chain contamination from hidden states alone.

Single-score translation metrics can conflate legitimate variation with error, a problem especially acute for classical languages where multiple defensible English renderings of the same passage coexist. We audit Pali-to-English output from four flagship large language models (LLMs): GPT-5.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok 4.3, on 1,700 passages from the Pali Canon, using three established human translations by Bhikkhu Sujato, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi as a local reference envelope rather than a single gold standard. Each candidate's normalized embedding drift from the reference centroid serves as a triage signal, not an error label; the 1,203 candidates above a 1.5 drift threshold are then adjudicated by a blinded three-model LLM judge panel, calibrated against a 300-instance author-adjudicated validation set. Two results stand out. First, drift predicts severity rather than error per se: the major-error rate among adjudicated high-drift candidates rose monotonically from 7.9% in the 1.5-2.0 band to 51.6% above 3.0, while approximately 80% of 1.5-2.0 outliers were judged valid translation variations. Second, model differences were clearest in the high-drift tail: GPT-5.5 had the lowest adjudicated high-drift major-error rate, with confidence intervals overlapping those of Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro; Grok 4.3 had both the largest outlier volume and the highest tail major-error rate (27.6% overall, 74.4% above drift 3.0). The dominant major-error categories (e.g. omission or truncation, doctrinal term errors) are precisely the failures most likely to mislead readers of doctrinal text. The contribution is a reusable audit design for classical-to-modern translation: define a local reference envelope from multiple human translators, use embedding drift to prioritize review, and adjudicate the flagged tail rather than treating outlier status as error.

We describe a registry-bound large-language-model extraction pipeline producing evidence-grounded structured trait records at scale, on cultivated tropical plant, aquatic, and pet species. Four mechanisms render LLM-derived rows auditable: a versioned 39-key closed-vocabulary trait registry constraining every admitted value to a typed schema; a per-row verbatim evidence quote tying each value to source text; a per-row confidence label (high or medium; low dropped pre-persist); and multi-version preservation. Applied to 409,880 publishable species from the Tropical Species Encyclopedia, the pipeline executed 706,220 runs and persisted 5,489,881 trait records across 409,820 species (99.985%), 81.57% at high confidence. We report three validation layers in descending evidentiary strength: at full population, 90.12% of 5,427,588 evidence-bearing rows have their quote as a verbatim source substring (93.49% excluding one compliance meta-trait); a quote-supports-value audit on n=100 stratified non-red-zone rows yielded 100/100 (lower bound 96.30%); face-validity on n=50 red-zone rows yielded 50/50 Accept (lower bound 92.86%). Per-record correctness is not claimed; 100% pending human curation. The contribution is the four-mechanism framework.

LLMs increasingly answer questions about taxes, labor protections, healthcare, education, pensions, and administrative procedures, where usefulness often depends on the applicable jurisdiction. Multilingual users may write in their most comfortable language rather than one associated with the country or region whose rules apply. We ask whether deployed LLMs use input language as a default jurisdictional signal when prompts omit any country or region. Prior multilingual audits show that prompt language can shift cultural, political, or normative outputs; we examine which legal-administrative framework models supply when jurisdiction is underspecified. We evaluate seven LLMs developed in the United States or China on 60 underspecified legal-administrative prompts in English and Mandarin Chinese under three system-prompt conditions, yielding 2,520 manually annotated responses. Across models and conditions, Chinese input more often produces China-specific answers, while English input more often produces U.S.-specific, comparative, or generic answers. Prompts requiring a single answer further increase jurisdiction selection: pooled across models, 74.5% of English-input responses adopt a U.S. framework, while 53.3% of Chinese-input responses adopt a China framework. This directional pattern appears in all seven models. We describe this deployment-level pattern as institutional-framework misselection risk: a fluent answer may rely on a legal-administrative context the user did not intend, especially when their preferred language differs from the relevant jurisdiction. LLM interfaces should not route institutional advice by input language alone; when location is absent, they should request it or state the jurisdictional scope of the answer.

Verifying claims about AI workloads is a prerequisite for credible AI governance of covert adversaries (who comply with monitoring only when detection likelihood is high), yet the apparent non-determinism of GPU floating-point arithmetic forces auditors to accept approximate output matches. Covert adversaries can exploit unverifiable degrees of freedom in monitored computation. Attack vectors include steganography, unreported modification of inference software, and covert computation via unreported batch elements. Empirically, we analyze how modern inference engines (vLLM, HF transformers) produce deterministic but non-invariant outputs, without needing to set performance-compromising determinism flags, if the right information is available for re-computation and no atomic functions are called in the backend. We demonstrate that such bitwise-precise re-computation does not require access to identical hardware, via a software-only emulation of LLM inference across multiple NVIDIA GPU variants. Thus, accumulated rounding errors can be an auditable signature of the software and hardware setup used for inference, instead of a constraint on verifiability.

Assessing whether Large Language Models outputs are factually grounded, epistemically calibrated, and methodologically reproducible is a prerequisite for responsible AI deployment. Yet auditing LLMs remains inaccessible to non-technical practitioners: existing tools require programming expertise and non-trivial environment setup, and cloud-hosted platforms transmit evaluation data to external services, creating barriers for domain experts and compliance officers legally responsible for AI oversight. We introduce LLM-FACETS (LLM FActuality Cross-EvaluaTion System): an open-source framework with a browser-accessible interface and a plugin architecture, structured around three practitioner profiles (technical experts, domain experts, compliance officers) that mirror the stakeholder categories identified in the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The architecture makes data flows explicit: deterministic metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore) run entirely within the self-hosted server with no outbound transmission; LLM-judge metrics contact external APIs explicitly, with users retaining full credential control. The framework operationalizes transparency through three mechanisms: token-level log-probability visualization for epistemic uncertainty, multi-judge consensus to mitigate judge bias, and RAG Triad metrics (Faithfulness, Answer Relevance, Context Relevance) to detect and localize hallucinations. A plugin architecture allows any new metric or dataset to be integrated without modifying the evaluation pipeline. The open-source implementation enables cross-checking across multiple metrics targeting the same property, ensuring reproducibility and decoupling AI accountability from the teams building the systems assessed. We verify the framework through cross-validation of 18 metric implementations against canonical reference libraries.

We audit six large language models (LLMs) for gender stereotyping across English, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. Three were developed primarily for English-language use (Claude, GPT, Gemini) and three for East Asian use (DeepSeek, Syn-Pro, HyperCLOVA X). We adopt the HEXACO-100 personality inventory and anchor each model against a cross-cultural human dataset spanning 48 countries to ask not whether LLMs are biased, but how far their gender attributions drift from the populations they are deployed among. Our findings show that their stereotyping spans a range roughly 2.5 times wider than the entire cross-country range found in humans, and the effect can compound across languages. One English-centric model, prompted in Korean, reached 5 times the local baseline, even when the prompt stated the candidate had already been hired, which often dampens human stereotyping. To characterize such behaviors without ranking them, we introduce a four-pattern framework -- concordance, suppression, reorganization, and amplification -- across 24 (model x language) cells. Item-level analysis reveals that translation does not just rescale stereotypes, but changes the attributes tied to it, hiding significant rearrangement under the surface while appearing well-calibrated. Our results ultimately suggest that no single debiasing pipeline is likely to address bias evenly across linguistic boundaries.

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from $65.0\%$ to $68.6\%$, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from $46.4\%$ to $36.0\%$ with little change in inter-judge agreement ($α{=}.531\to.519$).

Over the past year, prompt caching in Large Language Models (LLMs) has become increasingly more popular across inference APIs. Prompt caching helps save precious compute resources and speeds up response times by reusing parts of the KV cache of a specific prompt for another request. However, many implementations of prompt caching are not secure against timing attacks or even basic metadata disclosure. Gu et al. (ICML 2025) develop a method to audit prompt caching in LLMs. This paper investigates whether OpenRouter's API gateway architecture introduces prompt caching vulnerabilities that bypass provider-level prompt cache isolation guarantees. Most LLM inference providers implement per-account or per-organization prompt caching to prevent data leaks, but does routing through OpenRouter with shared organizational credentials inadvertently create global cache sharing across all OpenRouter users?

LLM benchmark labels are frozen at release and silently propagated into downstream benchmarks, errors and all. We introduce an Item Response Theory-based indicator that surfaces likely mislabels at 95% precision in the top 200 examples across seven preference and multiple-choice benchmarks using responses from 114 models, outperforming a supervised classifier. We trace these errors to mechanical labeling heuristics, upstream annotation mistakes inherited unchanged from source datasets, and fundamentally ambiguous items without a defensible single label. The same model fit reveals that reward models specialize in stylistic preference rather than factual knowledge, and identifies one frontier reward model that agrees with detected mislabels at 78% accuracy versus 38% for its peers, consistent with benchmark contamination or benchmark-specific over-optimization.

The pretraining data mixture of Large Language Models (LLMs) constitutes their "digital DNA", shaping model behaviors, capabilities, and failure modes. Yet this composition is rarely disclosed, making post-hoc auditing of data combination or provenance difficult. In this work, we formalize $\textbf{Data Mixture Surgery (DMS)}$: given only generated text from a target LLM, estimate the domain-level distribution of its pretraining corpus under a predefined taxonomy. We propose $\textbf{LLMSurgeon}$, a strong framework that casts DMS as an inverse problem under the label-shift assumption. Rather than directly aggregating classifier outputs, LLMSurgeon estimates a calibrated $\textit{soft}$ confusion matrix and solves a constrained inverse problem to correct systematic domain confusion and recover the latent mixture prior. To evaluate, we introduce $\textbf{LLMScan}$, a recipe-verifiable evaluation suite built from open-source LLMs with transparent pretraining mixtures. Across LLMScan, LLMSurgeon recovers domain mixtures with high fidelity under fixed protocols. Our work presents a practical, post-hoc approach for auditing the digital DNA of foundation models without access to their training data.

Per-token billing is now the standard pricing model for commercial large language models (LLMs), so the honesty of reported token counts directly affects what users pay. We show that this kind of billing is hard to audit by design: providers hide the model, the tokenizer, and the execution to protect their IP, mitigate jailbreaks, and preserve user privacy, which means an auditor can only inspect proofs the provider supplies. The audit therefore reduces to a consistency check on the provider's own reports. We call this a trust paradox: every audit must trust some artifact, but current frameworks trust exactly the ones a provider has the strongest reason to manipulate. We study three recent token auditing frameworks and show that a provider with ordinary commercial capabilities can systematically inflate billed token counts. In the most permissive setting, hidden reasoning usage can be inflated by 1,469% on average without detection. At current frontier reasoning prices, that turns a $100 honest bill into roughly a $1,569 bill on the same query. Even when the user can see the full reasoning string, tokenization ambiguity alone still allows 50.85% over-reporting below the detection threshold. These results suggest the problem is not in any specific auditor but in any audit whose evidence comes from the audited party. Restoring honest billing will require verification that ties reported token counts to evidence the provider does not control, such as trusted execution attestation, cryptographic proofs of inference, or third-party re-execution.

Public numeric benchmarks appear in pretraining, so an evaluation that conditions on a date may be measuring memorized recall rather than out-of-sample skill. We introduce NumLeak, a measurement framework that combines API-boundary probes on production models with a white-box controlled validation on an open causal LM. Top-tier frontier LLMs recall the Fama-French market excess return at 3-seed pooled Pearson r=0.97-0.99 while staying within 0.15 within-25bps on the five sibling factors; comparable fidelity appears on U.S. unemployment, CPI inflation, and NOAA temperature. On a recent-release holdout, parse rate collapses to 21-57% but r stays at approximately 0.99 on months answered, the refuse-or-recall asymmetry a memorized channel predicts. The white-box experiment reproduces the dose-response, and logprob ranking detects memorization that open-ended generation misses, implying closed-API black-box probes understate the channel. A Sonnet "date to market-sentiment" regression that correlates with true Mkt-RF at r=0.74 collapses to r=0.02 once the model's own recall is residualized out. A one-line system-prompt defense blocks 99.8% of a non-adaptive single-turn suffix attack set at near-zero utility cost on conceptual and historical-narrative queries

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) LLMs rely on sparse, router-driven expert activation, yet how safety alignment interacts with routed expert specialization remains underexplored. A common intuition is that safety behavior may be controlled by routing harmful requests to distinct refusal-oriented experts. In this work, we provide empirical evidence for a different picture: routing patterns in aligned MoE LLMs are largely topic-driven, while safety behavior can be altered with little change to the model's intrinsic routing path. Motivated by this observation, we present RASET (Router-Agnostic Safety-critical Expert Tuning), a red-teaming framework that probes safety enforcement that is localized in a small subset of experts while preserving the model's intrinsic routing behavior. RASET identifies safety-critical experts via a contrastive routing-sensitivity criterion and applies parameter-efficient tuning only to the selected experts, minimizing semantic disruption relative to router-steering interventions. These results reveal a distinct MoE safety risk, highlighting the need for expert-aware alignment mechanisms.

Relay and reseller APIs mediate access to large language models (LLMs), but users cannot directly verify which model serves them. We introduce \name, a black-box auditing protocol based on stable factual recall near the knowledge boundary, including repeatable wrong answers. KBF generates benign, renewable probes and calibrates audit decisions against reference self-variation. Across 16 production endpoints, KBF detects all 155 economically relevant substitutions without rejecting any of the 16 same-reference controls. KBF remains robust to deployment variation and reaches 95% TPR at a substitution rate as low as 15% in mixed-routing simulations. Field audits flag 7 of 28 endpoints across six platforms as statistically inconsistent with their references. After reference enrollment, even GPT-6 Astra costs only approximately $0.67 per online audit at the recorded API prices.

Language models are increasingly being deployed for conversational support in informal caregiving contexts, where interactions often extend beyond information-seeking: caregivers seek emotional reassurance, guidance, and help, while navigating uncertain, relationally complex care decisions. Yet most safety evaluations assess model behavior under generic prompts, leaving a critical question unexamined: does a model's safety profile change with its support role? We study this by operationalizing four expert-reviewed support roles grounded in social support theory: Inform, Coach, Relate, and Listen, and comparing them against two baseline controls: a basic prompting condition and a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) condition. We evaluate across three language models (GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and MedGemma-1.5-4b-it) on 5,000 real-world queries from online Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) communities. We find that the LLM's support role systematically shapes both the prevalence and composition of interactional risks. Furthermore, a human evaluation study reveals a perceived quality--safety tension: more directive, information-oriented roles are rated as more helpful and trustworthy despite exhibiting elevated interactional risk profiles. We release ~90,000 support role-conditioned model responses with risk annotations as an ecologically grounded resource for research on safer LLM-mediated conversational support.

The parameter counts of the most widely used large language models (LLMs) are often withheld by their developers, leaving model size -- a primary reference point for interpreting capabilities and costs -- largely undisclosed. We propose a black-box method to infer conservative lower bounds on LLM size from generated text outputs alone, requiring nothing beyond the ability to submit text fragments and observe next-token predictions. Our approach is grounded in a key observation: popular, widely-circulated texts -- such as classical literature, religious texts, and foundational documents -- are present in virtually every large-scale pretraining corpus, and how accurately a model predicts the next word across text fragments of varying length is a reliable signal of how much it has memorized them, which in turn is fundamentally limited by its total parameter count. We aggregate this memorization signal across a diverse corpus of texts and fragment lengths into a single accuracy profile vector per model, and build two complementary inference methods on top of it: a pairwise statistical test that determines which of two models is larger, and a scaling-law estimator that extracts a one-dimensional latent index from these vectors via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to map the aggregated signal to a parameter count. Validated on a broad set of open-weight models, both methods produce accurate and reliable lower bounds. When applied to popular closed-weight models, our framework recovers internal product hierarchies and reveals a clear divergence in industry scaling strategies: while some developers yield significantly higher bounds indicative of large generational parameter growth, others operate under strict parameter ceilings, demonstrating that hidden design choices can be systematically probed even under strict API limitations.

Federal agencies are deploying large language models (LLMs) to categorize public comment corpora, where the model's organization of the record shapes what policymakers see and which arguments register. Standard evaluation, anchored on stance accuracy against a small validated set, cannot detect when different models produce materially different categorizations of the same public input. We propose an Interpretive Audit Pipeline that treats multi-model disagreement as diagnostic of interpretive complexity and directs human review toward genuinely ambiguous public input. Analyzing 1,260 public comments on a federal USDA docket across four LLMs, we find that inter-model thematic divergence exceeds within-model prompt variation, and that an expert rubric suppresses deep interpretive disagreement without resolving it. In a two-stage labeling study on a stratified 40-comment subsample, four LLMs and a human annotator labeled independently and then revised after seeing the others' labels. Revision behavior varied across labelers, and the human annotator's revisions frequently introduced framings absent from the ensemble's collective output. We argue disagreement-based evaluation is a necessary complement to accuracy metrics for LLM-assisted interpretive coding.