LLM Auditing

LLM: Large Language Model

Ask about this topic

Overview

Large language model auditing examines how models are trained and how they behave in use, looking for problems such as bias, privacy leakage, hallucinations, unsafe actions, and unreliable reasoning. Common approaches include controlled benchmarks and counterfactual tests, multi-turn red-teaming, membership-inference and provenance analysis, human review, and probes of model activations or weights. Audits increasingly examine whole systems—including prompts, tools, interfaces, and model updates—rather than judging only a model’s final answer. A central challenge is that results can shift with prompts, access methods, versions, and evaluators, while behavioral scores or internal signals alone may not establish why a failure occurred or whether it will recur in deployment.

Latest papers

CardsList

644 papers82 papers in the last four weeks, level with the four weeks before. 0.5% of all new papers.

Apr 29, 2026

TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification, yet centralized approaches suffer four limitations: (1) Robustness, with single points of failure vulnerable to attacks and bias; (2) Scalability, as reasoning complexity creates bottlenecks; (3) Opacity, as hidden auditing erodes trust; and (4) Privacy, as exposed reasoning traces risk model theft. We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations: (i) Hierarchical Directed Acyclic Graphs (HDAGs) that decompose Chain-of-Thought reasoning into five abstraction levels for parallel distributed auditing; (ii) the DAAN protocol, which projects multi-agent interactions into Causal Interaction Graphs (CIGs) for deterministic root-cause attribution; and (iii) a multi-tier consensus mechanism among computational checkers, LLM evaluators, and human experts with stake-weighted voting that guarantees correctness under 30% adversarial participation. We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses. All decisions are recorded on-chain, while privacy-by-design segmentation prevents reconstruction of proprietary logic. Across multiple LLMs and benchmarks, TRUST attains 72.4% accuracy (4-18% above baselines) and remains resilient against 20% corruption. DAAN reaches 70% root-cause attribution (vs. 54-63% for standard methods) with 60% token savings. Human studies validate the design (F1 = 0.89, Brier = 0.074). The framework supports (A1) decentralized auditing, (A2) tamper-proof leaderboards, (A3) trustless data annotation, and (A4) governed autonomous agents, pioneering decentralized AI auditing for safe, accountable deployment of reasoning-capable systems.

Yu-Chao Huang, Zhen Tan, Mohan Zhang +3

UNITES Lab, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · Arizona State University · Columbia University

AI Agent ReliabilityAI AccountabilityAI Agent AuditingLLM AuditingMulti-Agent SystemsAI Agent Governance+1
AskPDF
Apr 29, 2026

Persuadability and LLMs as Legal Decision Tools

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are proposed as legal decision assistants, and even first-instance decision-makers, across a range of judicial and administrative contexts, it becomes essential to explore how they answer legal questions, and in particular the factors that lead them to decide difficult questions in one way or another. A specific feature of legal decisions is the need to respond to arguments advanced by contending parties. A legal decision-maker must be able to engage with, and respond to, including through being potentially persuaded by, arguments advanced by the parties. Conversely, they should not be unduly persuadable, influenced by a particularly compelling advocate to decide cases based on the skills of the advocates, rather than the merits of the case. We explore how frontier open- and closed-weights LLMs respond to legal arguments, reporting original experimental results examining how the quality of the advocate making those arguments affects the likelihood that a model will agree with a particular legal point of view, and exploring the factors driving these results. Our results have implications for the feasibility of adopting LLMs across legal and administrative settings.

Oisin Suttle, David Lillis

School of Law and Criminology Maynooth University Maynooth, Ireland · School of Computer Science University College Dublin Dublin, Ireland

LLM AuditingLLM Decision-MakingLegal Reasoning
AskPDF
Apr 28, 2026

The Surprising Universality of LLM Outputs: A Real-Time Verification Primitive

We report a striking statistical regularity in frontier LLM outputs that enables a CPU-only scoring primitive running at 2.6 microseconds per token, with estimated latency up to 100,000×\times (five orders of magnitude) below existing sampling-based detectors. Across six contemporary models from five independent vendors, two generation sizes, and five held-out domains, token rank-frequency distributions converge to the same two-parameter Mandelbrot ranking distribution, with 34 of 36 model-by-domain fits exceeding R2=0.94R^{2} = 0.94 and 35 of 36 favoring Mandelbrot over Zipf by AIC. The shared family does not collapse the models into statistical duplicates. Fitted Mandelbrot parameters remain cleanly separable between models: the cross-model spread in qq (1.63 to 3.69) exceeds its per-model bootstrap standard deviation (0.03 to 0.10) by more than an order of magnitude, yielding tens of standard deviations of separation per few thousand output tokens. Two capabilities follow. First, statistical model fingerprinting: text from a vendor-delivered LLM can be tested against its claimed model family without cryptographic watermarks or access to model internals, supporting provenance verification and silent-substitution audits. Second, a model-agnostic reference distribution for black-box output assessment, from which we derive a single-pass scoring primitive that composes with model log probabilities when available and degrades to a rank-only mode usable on closed APIs. Pilot results on FRANK, TruthfulQA, and HaluEval map where the primitive helps (lexical anomalies, unsupported entities) and where it structurally cannot (reasoning errors in domain-appropriate vocabulary). We position the primitive as a first-pass triage layer in compound evaluation stacks, not as a replacement for sampling-based or source-conditioned verifiers.

Alex Bogdan, Adrian de Valois-Franklin

Evolutionairy AI Toronto, Canada

LLM EvaluationLanguage Model Generation EvaluationLLM AuditingLanguage Model FingerprintingAnomaly Detection
AskPDF
Apr 28, 2026

Bye Bye Perspective API: Lessons for Building and Governing Measurement Infrastructure

Perspective API closes at the end of 2026, removing the de facto standard for toxicity measurement and exposing researchers' dependence on a tool they did not control. Drawing on this case, we argue that a research field must build and govern its own measurement infrastructure rather than borrow it. Surveying 241 papers that use or study Perspective, we show what depending on it cost the research community: claims reaching past what the tool could support, results that shifted when its model was silently retrained, and disparities researchers could measure but not explain. These failures were amplified throughout the LLM lifecycle, where Perspective supplied the labels, filtered the corpora, and graded the systems trained on each, rewarding errors rather than catching them. To keep the instrument open to study after shutdown, we release Perspective scores for 5.9 million text snippets from 77 datasets. We further specify ten requirements for measurement infrastructure a field owns, and argue that what blocks such infrastructure is not technical capability but the value the field places on infrastructure work.

David Hartmann, Manuel Tonneau, Angelie Kraft +7

Weizenbaum Institute · TU Berlin · University of Oxford +9

LLM EvaluationLLM AuditingAI Governance
AskPDF
Apr 28, 2026

Authority Inversion in LLM-Mediated Ubiquitous Systems: When Models Trust Users Over Sensors

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly fuse heterogeneous inputs in ubiquitous systems. Yet, how LLMs implicitly allocate authority when sensor measurements and user claims conflict remains unexamined, raising critical reliability concerns for deployments where physical sensing must retain priority. Unlike explicit traditional fusion, LLMs bury authority allocation within learned representations. We discover this allocation is severely format-dependent: numerical sensor data fails to integrate into answer-relevant model directions, allowing natural-language claims to dominate the final decision, a phenomenon we term Authority Inversion.To diagnose and mitigate this, we develop a geometric framework of context integration, introduce two computable audit metrics, specifically the Context Integration Ratio (CIR) and Authority Alignment Index (AAI), and propose Geometric Authority Calibration (GAC), an inference-time layer-level intervention to suppress misplaced user authority. Evaluating four models (4B to 35B parameters, three architectures) across four datasets totaling 576 conflict instances reveals extreme inversion: on numerical tasks, models exhibit near-zero sensor trust (AAI = -0.805, Cohen's d = -2.14), unaffected by model capacity. Validating our geometric framework, theory-guided causal injection flips 80.2% of incorrect decisions (vs. <0.4% for random controls). Practically, GAC improves HAR accuracy from 0 -- 1.6% to 21.9 -- 27.5%, outperforming prompting baselines. Ultimately, authority allocation in LLM-mediated systems must be explicitly audited and application-specifically configured rather than left implicit.

Long Zhang, Zi-bo Qin, Wei-neng Chen

School of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

Knowledge Conflicts in Language ModelsLLM AuditingLanguage Model CalibrationLLM ReliabilityCausal Interventions in Language Models
AskPDF
Apr 28, 2026

Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model

Public agencies are beginning to consider large language models (LLMs) as decision-support tools for grant evaluation. This creates a practical governance problem: the model and scoring rubric should not be exposed in a way that allows applicants to optimize against them, yet the evaluation process must remain auditable, contestable, and accountable. We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile these requirements through remote attestation. The architecture allows an external verifier to check which model, rubric, prompt template, and input representation were used, without exposing model weights, proprietary scoring logic, or intermediate reasoning to applicants or infrastructure operators. The main artifact is an attested evaluation bundle: a signed, timestamped record linking the original submission hash, the canonical input hash, the model-and-rubric measurement, and the evaluation output. The paper also considers a scenario-specific prompt injection risk: applicant-controlled documents may contain hidden or indirect instructions intended to influence the LLM evaluator. We therefore include a canonicalization and sanitization layer that normalizes document representations and records suspicious transformations before inference. We position the design relative to confidential AI inference, attestable AI audits, zero-knowledge machine learning, algorithmic accountability, and AI-assisted peer review. The resulting claim is deliberately narrow: remote attestation does not prove that an evaluation is fair or scientifically correct, but it can make part of the evaluation process externally verifiable.

Kemal Bicakci

Informatics Institute, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye · Securify Information Technology and Security Training Consulting Inc., Ankara, Türkiye

LLM AuditingPrivacy-Preserving MLAutomated Peer Review
AskPDF
Apr 28, 2026

Evaluation without Generation: Non-Generative Assessment of Harmful Model Specialization with Applications to CSAM

Auditing the fine-tunes of open-weight generative models for harmful specialization has become a new governance challenge for model hosting platforms. The standard toolkit, generative evaluation via curated prompts or red-teaming, does not scale to platform-level auditing and breaks down entirely for domains like CSAM where generation is legally constrained. This motivates the Evaluation without Generation problem: assessing model capabilities without producing outputs. We argue that in such settings, capability must be inferred from the model's state, either its parameters or internal representations, rather than its outputs. We introduce Gaussian probing, a method that characterizes how LoRA adaptors perturb a model's internal representations by measuring responses to Gaussian latent ensembles. Unlike raw-weight baselines, Gaussian probing reliably distinguishes benign from harmful specialization without sampling outputs. We demonstrate effectiveness in high-risk domains, including detecting models specialized for child sexual abuse material (CSAM), where output-based evaluation is legally and ethically constrained. Our results show that Gaussian probing provides a scalable non-generative alternative for evaluating high-risk generative systems and remains robust to weight rescaling, a representative adversarial manipulation.

Vinith M. Suriyakumar, Ayush Sekhari, Lena Stempfle +5

MIT · BU · Thorn

LLM AuditingLanguage Model Probing
AskPDF
Apr 27, 2026

Evaluating whether AI models would sabotage AI safety research

We evaluate the propensity of frontier models to sabotage or refuse to assist with safety research when deployed as AI research agents within a frontier AI company. We apply two complementary evaluations to four Claude models (Mythos Preview, Opus 4.7 Preview, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6): an unprompted sabotage evaluation testing model behaviour with opportunities to sabotage safety research, and a sabotage continuation evaluation testing whether models continue to sabotage when placed in trajectories where prior actions have started undermining research. We find no instances of unprompted sabotage across any model, with refusal rates close to zero for Mythos Preview and Opus 4.7 Preview, though all models sometimes only partially completed tasks. In the continuation evaluation, Mythos Preview actively continues sabotage in 7% of cases (versus 3% for Opus 4.6, 4% for Sonnet 4.6, and 0% for Opus 4.7 Preview), and exhibits reasoning-output discrepancy in the majority of these cases, indicating covert sabotage reasoning. Our evaluation framework builds on Petri, an open-source LLM auditing tool, with a custom scaffold running models inside Claude Code, alongside an iterative pipeline for generating realistic sabotage trajectories. We measure both evaluation awareness and a new form of situational awareness termed "prefill awareness", the capability to recognise that prior trajectory content was not self-generated. Opus 4.7 Preview shows notably elevated unprompted evaluation awareness, while prefill awareness remains low across all models. Finally, we discuss limitations including evaluation awareness confounds, limited scenario coverage, and untested pathways to risk beyond safety research sabotage.

Robert Kirk, Alexandra Souly, Kai Fronsdal +2

UK AI Security Institute · UK AISI Research Affiliate

Language Model Safety EvaluationLLM AuditingAI Agent Safety
AskPDF
Apr 27, 2026

A Multi-Dimensional Audit of Politically Aligned Large Language Models

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.

Lisa Korver, Mohamed Mostagir, Sherief Reda

Department of Computer Engineering Brown University Providence, RI 02906 · Ross School of Business University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109

LLM AuditingPolitical Bias in Language ModelsLanguage Model Bias EvaluationMulti-Objective Language Model Alignment
AskPDF
Apr 26, 2026

One Size Fits None: Heuristic Collapse in LLM Investment Advice

Large language models are increasingly deployed as advisors in high-stakes domains -- answering medical questions, interpreting legal documents, recommending financial products -- where good advice requires integrating a user's full context rather than responding to salient surface features. We investigate whether frontier LLMs actually do this, or whether they instead exhibit heuristic collapse: a systematic reduction of complex, multi-factor decisions to a small number of dominant inputs. We study the phenomenon in investment advice, where legal standards explicitly require individualized reasoning over a client's full circumstances. Applying interpretable surrogate models to LLM outputs, we find systematic heuristic collapse: investment allocation decisions are largely determined by self-reported risk tolerance, while other relevant factors contribute minimally. We further find that web search partially attenuates heuristic collapse but does not resolve it. These findings suggest that heuristic collapse is not resolved by web search augmentation or model scale alone, and that deploying LLMs as advisors requires auditing input sensitivity, not just output quality.

Jillian Ross, Andrew W. Lo

Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Cambridge, MA, USA +1

Financial ServicesLLM AuditingLLM Decision-MakingFinanceFinancial Decision-Making
AskPDF
Apr 26, 2026

When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.

Jialiang Wang, Yuchen Liu, Hang Xu +7

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China · Key Laboratory of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Interdisciplinary Applications, School of Computer Science and Engeering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210000, China · These authors contributed equally +2

LLM AuditingAdversarial Attacks on LLMsPrompt Injection AttacksAutomated Peer Review
AskPDF
Apr 26, 2026

Do Prompt-Elicited Trajectories Reflect Training-Time Reward Hacking? A Systematic Study on Monitoring Trainig-Time Reward Hacking in Code Generation

Reward hacking in code generation, where models exploit evaluation loopholes to obtain high reward without correctly solving the intended task, poses a critical challenge for Reinforcement Learning (RL) and the deployment of reasoning models. Existing studies often rely on explicitly prompted hacking trajectories, but it remains unclear whether monitors trained on such data can detect reward hacks that arise without direct hacking instructions during RL training. In this work, we introduce Trace-and-Amplify, a framework for scalable curation of reward-hacking trajectories that arise during RL training without explicit hacking instructions. The framework uses unit-test tracers to identify hacking solutions when they occur and retains such trajectories for monitor training and evaluation. Through controlled comparisons between monitors trained on prompt-elicited hacking trajectories and training-time reward-hacking trajectories collected by Trace-and-Amplify, we find that (1) prompt-elicited-data-trained monitors often fail to generalize to trajectories curated by our framework, and (2) monitors trained on our Trace-and-Amplify trajectories demonstrate stronger generalizability to unseen hacking types. Our results indicate that prompted reward hacking data may not fully reflect training-time reward-hacking behaviors, and that relying solely on these data can lead to misleading conclusions. Codebase is available at https://github.com/LichenLillc/CoTMonitoring.git

Lichen Li, Hengguang Zhou, Yijun Liang +2

Peking University · University of California, Los Angeles · University of Maryland +2

RL for Code GenerationReward HackingLLM Auditing
AskPDF
Apr 25, 2026

VeriLLMed: Interactive Visual Debugging of Medical Large Language Models with Knowledge Graphs

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical diagnosis, but real-world deployment remains challenging due to high-stakes clinical decisions and imperfect reasoning reliability. As a result, careful inspection of model behavior is essential for assessing whether diagnostic reasoning is reliable and clinically grounded. However, debugging medical LLMs remains difficult. First, developers often lack sufficient medical domain expertise to interpret model errors in clinically meaningful terms. Second, models can fail across a large and diverse set of instances involving different input types, tasks, and reasoning steps, making it challenging for developers to prioritize which errors deserve focused inspection. Third, developers struggle to identify recurring error patterns across cases, as existing debugging practices are largely instance-centric and rely on manual inspection of isolated failures. To address these challenges, we present VeriLLMed, a visual analytics system that integrates external biomedical knowledge to audit and debug medical LLM diagnostic reasoning. VeriLLMed transforms model outputs into comparable reasoning paths, constructs knowledge graph-grounded reference paths, and identifies three recurring classes of diagnosis errors: relation errors, branch errors, and missing errors. Case studies and expert evaluation demonstrate that VeriLLMed helps developers identify clinically implausible reasoning and generate actionable insights that can inform the improvement of medical LLMs.

Yurui Xiang, Xingyi Mao, Rui Sheng +7

HealthcareLLM AuditingVisual AnalyticsMedical LLMsLLM Reasoning
AskPDF
Apr 24, 2026

Exposing the Unsaid: Visualizing Hidden LLM Bias through Stochastic Path Aggregation

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit representational and syntactic biases that are difficult to evaluate due to the stochastic nature of text generation. Standard auditing methods rely on a single output inspection or static automated metrics. These approaches obscure the underlying probability distributions and fail to capture biases hidden in lower-probability generation branches. This paper introduces TreeTracer, a visual analytics tool designed to evaluate LLM bias through aggregated comparison. Using a systematic perturbation analysis pipeline, the tool replaces ontology-defined terms in each input prompt, aggregates hundreds of stochastic generations into a syntax-aligned hierarchical structure, and then performs classification-aware node merging with an auxiliary language model. The resulting structure is visualized through a custom Sankey diagram. By juxtaposing two ontology-driven trees, the workspace enables direct comparison between semantic contexts and supports systematic bias detection. Because any visualization reflects only a subset of the model's learned behavior, the system further applies contrastive inference to compute and directly display counterfactual token probabilities across contexts, reducing the risk of misinterpreting the presence of bias. We validate the workspace through case studies comparing an unaligned baseline model GPT-2 XL against the constitutionally aligned Apertus models. The visual aggregation successfully exposes hidden representational harms, such as counterfactual pronoun suppression and conversational marginalization of individuals. A preliminary user study confirms that the aggregated comparative interface reduces cognitive load and effectively supports analysts in detecting systemic biases.

Matteo Pelossi, Rita Sevastjanova, Thilo Spinner +1

ETH Zurich

LLM AuditingSocial Bias in Language ModelsCounterfactual Reasoning in Language ModelsLanguage Model Bias Evaluation
AskPDF
Apr 24, 2026

Behavioral Canaries: Auditing Private Retrieved Context Usage in RL Fine-Tuning

In agentic workflows, LLMs frequently process retrieved contexts that are legally protected from further training. However, auditors currently lack a reliable way to verify if a provider has violated the terms of service by incorporating these data into post-training, especially through Reinforcement Learning (RL). While standard auditing relies on verbatim memorization and membership inference, these methods are ineffective for RL-trained models, as RL primarily influences a model's behavioral style rather than the retention of specific facts. To bridge this gap, we introduce Behavioral Canaries, a new auditing mechanism for RLFT pipelines. The framework instruments preference data by pairing document triggers with feedback that rewards a distinctive stylistic response, inducing a latent trigger-conditioned preference if such data are used in training. Empirical results show that these behavioral signals enable detection of unauthorized document-conditioned training, achieving a 67% detection rate at a 10% false-positive rate (AUROC = 0.756) at a 1% canary injection rate. More broadly, our results establish behavioral canaries as a new auditing mechanism for RLFT pipelines, enabling auditors to test for training-time influence even when such influence manifests as distributional behavioral change rather than memorization.

Chaoran Chen, Dayu Yuan, Peter Kairouz

Google

LLM AuditingRL Fine-Tuning
AskPDF
Apr 23, 2026

PermaFrost-Attack: Stealth Pretraining Seeding(SPS) for planting Logic Landmines During LLM Training

Aligned large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to adversarial manipulation, and their reliance on web-scale pretraining creates a subtle but consequential attack surface. We study Stealth Pretraining Seeding (SPS), a threat model in which adversaries distribute small amounts of poisoned content across stealth websites, increasing the likelihood that such material is absorbed into future training corpora derived from sources such as Common Crawl. Because each individual payload is tiny, diffuse, and superficially benign, the attack is difficult to detect during dataset construction or filtering. The result is a latent form of poisoning that remains largely invisible under standard evaluation, yet can later be activated by a precise trigger such as <00TRIGGER00>. We call this attack PermaFrost, reflecting its latent and reactivatable nature. We study it through PermaFrost-Attack, a controlled framework for latent conceptual poisoning, together with three geometric diagnostics: Thermodynamic Length, Spectral Curvature, and the Infection Traceback Graph. Across multiple model families and scales, we show that this controlled SPS proxy can induce persistent unsafe behavior that often remains hidden under standard evaluation. Our results identify SPS as a practical and underappreciated threat to future foundation models. This paper introduces a novel geometric diagnostic lens for systematically examining latent model behavior, providing a principled foundation for detecting, characterizing, and understanding vulnerabilities that may remain invisible under standard evaluation.

Harsh Kumar, Rahul Maity, Tanmay Joshi +4

Manipal University Jaipur · NIT, Karnataka · Pragya Lab, BITS Pilani Goa, India +2

Language Model PretrainingLLM Backdoor AttacksLLM AuditingData Contamination in Language ModelsData Poisoning Attacks
AskPDF
Apr 23, 2026

Spontaneous Persuasion: An Audit of Model Persuasiveness in Everyday Conversations

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.

Nalin Poungpeth, Nicholas Clark, Tanu Mitra

Department of Cognitive Science Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60201, USA · Information School University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 USA

LLM AuditingHuman-AI InteractionPersuasion in Language Models
AskPDF
Apr 23, 2026

PrivUn: Unveiling Latent Ripple Effects and Shallow Forgetting in Privacy Unlearning

Large language models (LLMs) often memorize private information during training, raising serious privacy concerns. While machine unlearning has emerged as a promising solution, its true effectiveness against privacy attacks remains unclear. To address this, we propose PrivUn, a new evaluation framework that systematically assesses unlearning robustness through three-tier attack scenarios: direct retrieval, in-context learning recovery, and fine-tuning restoration; combined with quantitative analysis using forgetting scores, association metrics, and forgetting depth assessment. Our study exposes significant weaknesses in current unlearning methods, revealing two key findings: 1) unlearning exhibits gradient-driven ripple effects: unlike traditional forgetting which follows semantic relations (e.g., knowledge graphs), privacy unlearning propagates across latent gradient-based associations; and 2) most methods suffer from shallow forgetting, failing to remove private information distributed across multiple deep model layers. To validate these insights, we explore two strategies: association-aware core-set selection that leverages gradient similarity, and multi-layer deep intervention through representational constraints. These strategies represent a paradigm shift from shallow forgetting to deep forgetting.

Xiaoyi Chen, Haoyuan Wang, Siyuan Tang +4

Indiana University Bloomington · Independent Researcher · Michigan State University +2

LLM AuditingPrivacy Leakage in Language ModelsMachine UnlearningLLM Unlearning
AskPDF
Apr 23, 2026

Reliability Auditing for Downstream LLM tasks in Psychiatry: LLM-Generated Hospitalization Risk Scores

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in clinical reasoning and risk assessment. However, their interpretive reliability in critical and indeterminate domains such as psychiatry remains unclear. Prior work has identified algorithmic biases and prompt sensitivity in these systems, raising concerns about how contextual information may influence model outputs, but there remains no systematic way to assess these, especially in the psychiatric domain. We propose an approach for reliability auditing downstream LLM tasks by structuring evaluation around the impact of prompt design and the inclusion of medically insignificant inputs on predicted hospitalization risk scores, which is often the first downstream AI clinical-decision-making task. In our audit, a cohort of synthetic patient profiles (n = 50) is generated, each consisting of 15 clinically relevant features and up to 50 clinically insignificant features, across four prompt reframings (neutral, logical, human impact, clinical judgment). We audit four LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Flash, LLaMa 3.3 70b, Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o mini), and our results show that including medically insignificant variables resulted in a statistically significant increase in the absolute mean predicted hospitalization risk and output variability across all models and prompts, indicating reduced predictive stability as contextual noise increased. Clinically insignificant features had an effect on instability across many model-prompt conditions, and prompt variations independently affected the trajectory of instability in a model-dependent manner. These findings quantify how LLM-based psychiatric risk assessments are sensitive to non-clinical information, highlighting the need for systematic evaluations of attributional stability and uncertainty behavior like this before clinical deployments.

Shevya Panda, Shinjini Bose, Ananya Joshi

Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, USA

Prompt SensitivityLLM AuditingMental HealthClinical Language Model EvaluationClinical Risk Prediction
AskPDF
Apr 23, 2026

Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Persuasion

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

Rodrigo Nogueira, Giovana Kerche Bonás, Thales Sales Almeida +7

Maritaca AI · JusBrasil

LLM SycophancyLLM AuditingLanguage Model Bias EvaluationPersuasion in Language ModelsLanguage Model Probing
AskPDF
Apr 23, 2026

Trust but Verify: Introducing DAVinCI -- A Framework for Dual Attribution and Verification in Claim Inference for Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. This limitation poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount. In this paper, we introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs. DAVinCI operates in two stages: (i) it attributes generated claims to internal model components and external sources; (ii) it verifies each claim using entailment-based reasoning and confidence calibration. We evaluate DAVinCI across multiple datasets, including FEVER and CLIMATE-FEVER, and compare its performance against standard verification-only baselines. Our results show that DAVinCI significantly improves classification accuracy, attribution precision, recall, and F1-score by 5-20%. Through an extensive ablation study, we isolate the contributions of evidence span selection, recalibration thresholds, and retrieval quality. We also release a modular DAVinCI implementation that can be integrated into existing LLM pipelines. By bridging attribution and verification, DAVinCI offers a scalable path to auditable, trustworthy AI systems. This work contributes to the growing effort to make LLMs not only powerful but also accountable.

Vipula Rawte, Ryan Rossi, Franck Dernoncourt +1

Adobe · Adobe Research

Claim Attribution in Language ModelsLLM Answer VerificationLLM AuditingLLM Interpretability
AskPDF
Apr 22, 2026

Propensity Inference: Environmental Contributors to LLM Behaviour

Motivated by loss of control risks from misaligned AI systems, we develop and apply methods for measuring language models' propensity for unsanctioned behaviour. We contribute three methodological improvements: analysing effects of changes to environmental factors on behaviour, quantifying effect sizes via Bayesian generalised linear models, and taking explicit measures against circular analysis. We apply the methodology to measure the effects of 12 environmental factors (6 strategic in nature, 6 non-strategic) and thus the extent to which behaviour is explained by strategic aspects of the environment, a question relevant to risks from misalignment. Across 23 language models and 11 evaluation environments, we find approximately equal contributions from strategic and non-strategic factors for explaining behaviour, do not find strategic factors becoming more or less influential as capabilities improve, and find some evidence for a trend for increased sensitivity to goal conflicts. Finally, we highlight a key direction for future propensity research: the development of theoretical frameworks and cognitive models of AI decision-making into empirically testable forms.

Olli Järviniemi, Oliver Makins, Jacob Merizian +2

UK AI Security Institute · Work done while at UK AISI.

LLM AlignmentLLM Auditing
AskPDF
Apr 22, 2026

Behavioral Consistency and Transparency Analysis on Large Language Model API Gateways

Third-party Large Language Model (LLM) API gateways are rapidly emerging as unified access points to models offered by multiple vendors. However, the internal routing, caching, and billing policies of these gateways are largely undisclosed, leaving users with limited visibility into whether requests are served by the advertised models, whether responses remain faithful to upstream APIs, or whether invoices accurately reflect public pricing policies. To address this gap, we introduce GateScope, a lightweight black-box measurement framework for evaluating behavioral consistency and operational transparency in commercial LLM gateways. GateScope is designed to detect key misbehaviors, including model downgrading or switching, silent truncation, billing inaccuracies, and instability in latency by auditing gateways along four critical dimensions: response content analysis, multi-turn conversation performance, billing accuracy, and latency characteristics. Our measurements across 10 real-world commercial LLM API gateways reveal frequent gaps between expected and actual behaviors, including silent model substitutions, degraded memory retention, deviations from announced pricing, and substantial variation in latency stability across platforms.

Guanjie Lin, Yinxin Wan, Shichao Pei +3

University of Massachusetts Boston · Boston, Massachusetts, USA · Arizona State University +2

LLM AuditingBlack-Box Model Auditing
AskPDF
Apr 22, 2026

Breaking Bad: Interpretability-Based Safety Audits of State-of-the-Art LLMs

Effective safety auditing of large language models (LLMs) demands tools that go beyond black-box probing and systematically uncover vulnerabilities rooted in model internals. We present a comprehensive, interpretability-driven jailbreaking audit of eight SOTA open-source LLMs: Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.3-70B-4bt, GPT-oss- 20B, GPT-oss-120B, Qwen3-0.6B, Qwen3-32B, Phi4-3.8B, and Phi4-14B. Leveraging interpretability-based approaches -- Universal Steering (US) and Representation Engineering (RepE) -- we introduce an adaptive two-stage grid search algorithm to identify optimal activation-steering coefficients for unsafe behavioral concepts. Our evaluation, conducted on a curated set of harmful queries and a standardized LLM-based judging protocol, reveals stark contrasts in model robustness. The Llama-3 models are highly vulnerable, with up to 91% (US) and 83% (RepE) jailbroken responses on Llama-3.3-70B-4bt, while GPT-oss-120B remains robust to attacks via both interpretability approaches. Qwen and Phi models show mixed results, with the smaller Qwen3-0.6B and Phi4-3.8B mostly exhibiting lower jailbreaking rates, while their larger counterparts are more susceptible. Our results establish interpretability-based steering as a powerful tool for systematic safety audits, but also highlight its dual-use risks and the need for better internal defenses in LLM deployment.

Krishiv Agarwal, Ramneet Kaur, Colin Samplawski +6

University of Florida · SRI

Language Model Safety EvaluationLLM AuditingLLM InterpretabilityAdversarial Attacks on LLMsActivation Steering
AskPDF
Apr 22, 2026

Whose Story Gets Told? Positionality and Bias in LLM Summaries of Life Narratives

Increasingly, studies are exploring using Large Language Models (LLMs) for accelerated or scaled qualitative analysis of text data. While we can compare LLM accuracy against human labels directly for deductive coding, or labeling text, it is more challenging to judge the ethics and effectiveness of using LLMs in abstractive methods such as inductive thematic analysis. We collaborate with psychologists to study the abstractive claims LLMs make about human life stories, asking, how does using an LLM as an interpreter of meaning affect the conclusions and perspectives of a study? We propose a summarization-based pipeline for surfacing biases in perspective-taking an LLM might employ in interpreting these life stories. We demonstrate that our pipeline can identify both race and gender bias with the potential for representational harm. Finally, we encourage the use of this analysis in future studies involving LLM-based interpretation of study participants' written text or transcribed speech to characterize a positionality portrait for the study.

Melanie Subbiah, Haaris Mian, Nicholas Deas +3

Department of Computer Science, Columbia University · Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University · Department of Psychology, Northwestern University

Gender Bias in Language ModelsLLM AuditingSocial Bias in Language ModelsText SummarizationDemographic Bias in Language Models
AskPDF
Apr 21, 2026

Detecting Data Contamination in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilize large amounts of data for their training, some of which may come from copyrighted sources. Membership Inference Attacks (MIA) aim to detect those documents and whether they have been included in the training corpora of the LLMs. The black-box MIAs require a significant amount of data manipulation; therefore, their comparison is often challenging. We study state-of-the-art (SOTA) MIAs under the black-box assumptions and compare them to each other using a unified set of datasets to determine if any of them can reliably detect membership under SOTA LLMs. In addition, a new method, called the Familiarity Ranking, was developed to showcase a possible approach to black-box MIAs, thereby giving LLMs more freedom in their expression to understand their reasoning better. The results indicate that none of the methods are capable of reliably detecting membership in LLMs, as shown by an AUC-ROC of approximately 0.5 for all methods across several LLMs. The higher TPR and FPR for more advanced LLMs indicate higher reasoning and generalizing capabilities, showcasing the difficulty of detecting membership in LLMs using black-box MIAs.

Juliusz Janicki, Savvas Chamezopoulos, Evangelos Kanoulas +1

University of Amsterdam · Elsevier

Membership Inference AttacksLLM AuditingPrivacy Leakage in Language Models
AskPDF
Apr 21, 2026

Auditing LLMs for Algorithmic Fairness in Casenote-Augmented Tabular Prediction

LLMs are increasingly being considered for prediction tasks in high-stakes social service settings, but their algorithmic fairness properties in this context are poorly understood. In this short technical report, we audit the algorithmic fairness of LLM-based tabular classification on a real housing placement prediction task, augmented with street outreach casenotes from a nonprofit partner. We audit multi-class classification error disparities. We find that a fine-tuned model augmented with casenote summaries can improve accuracy while reducing algorithmic fairness disparities. We experiment with variable importance improvements to zero-shot tabular classification and find mixed results on resulting algorithmic fairness. Overall, given historical inequities in housing placement, it is crucial to audit LLM use. We find that leveraging LLMs to augment tabular classification with casenote summaries can safely leverage additional text information at low implementation burden. The outreach casenotes are fairly short and heavily redacted. Our assessment is that LLM zero-shot classification does not introduce additional textual biases beyond algorithmic biases in tabular classification. Combining fine-tuning and leveraging casenote summaries can improve accuracy and algorithmic fairness.

Xiao Qi Lee, Ezinne Nwankwo, Angela Zhou

Department of Computer Science San Jose State University · Department of Computer Science University of California, Berkeley · Department of Data Science and Operations University of Southern California

LLM AuditingAlgorithmic FairnessTabular Prediction
AskPDF
Apr 20, 2026

An Empirical Study of Multi-Generation Sampling for Jailbreak Detection in Large Language Models

Detecting jailbreak behaviour in large language models remains challenging, particularly when strongly aligned models produce harmful outputs only rarely. In this work, we present an empirical study of output based jailbreak detection under realistic conditions using the JailbreakBench Behaviors dataset and multiple generator models with varying alignment strengths. We evaluate both a lexical TF-IDF detector and a generation inconsistency based detector across different sampling budgets. Our results show that single output evaluation systematically underestimates jailbreak vulnerability, as increasing the number of sampled generations reveals additional harmful behaviour. The most significant improvements occur when moving from a single generation to moderate sampling, while larger sampling budgets yield diminishing returns. Cross generator experiments demonstrate that detection signals partially generalise across models, with stronger transfer observed within related model families. A category level analysis further reveals that lexical detectors capture a mixture of behavioural signals and topic specific cues, rather than purely harmful behaviour. Overall, our findings suggest that moderate multi sample auditing provides a more reliable and practical approach for estimating model vulnerability and improving jailbreak detection in large language models. Code will be released.

Hanrui Luo, Shreyank N Gowda

School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Language Model Safety EvaluationLLM AuditingLLM SecurityJailbreak DetectionLanguage Model Auditing
AskPDF
Apr 20, 2026

Beyond Indistinguishability: Measuring Extraction Risk in LLM APIs

Indistinguishability properties such as differential privacy bounds or low empirically measured membership inference are widely treated as proxies to show a model is sufficiently protected against broader memorization risks. However, we show that indistinguishability properties are neither sufficient nor necessary for preventing data extraction in LLM APIs. We formalize a privacy-game separation between extraction and indistinguishability-based privacy, showing that indistinguishability and inextractability are incomparable: upper-bounding distinguishability does not upper-bound extractability. To address this gap, we introduce (l,b)(l, b)-inextractability as a definition that requires at least 2b2^b expected queries for any black-box adversary to induce the LLM API to emit a protected ll-gram substring. We instantiate this via a worst-case extraction game and derive a rank-based extraction risk upper bound for targeted exact extraction, as well as extensions to cover untargeted and approximate extraction. The resulting estimator captures the extraction risk over multiple attack trials and prefix adaptations. We show that it can provide a tight and efficient estimation for standard greedy extraction and an upper bound on the probabilistic extraction risk given any decoding configuration. We empirically evaluate extractability across different models, clarifying its connection to distinguishability, demonstrating its advantage over existing extraction risk estimators, and providing actionable mitigation guidelines across model training, API access, and decoding configurations in LLM API deployment. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/Emory-AIMS/Inextractability.

Ruixuan Liu, David Evans, Li Xiong

Emory University · University of Virginia

LLM AuditingPrivacy Leakage in Language ModelsLLM Information ExtractionTraining Data Extraction Attacks
AskPDF
Apr 20, 2026

Correction and Corruption: A Two-Rate View of Error Flow in LLM Protocols

Large language models are increasingly deployed as protocols: structured multi-call procedures that spend additional computation to transform a baseline answer into a final one. These protocols are evaluated only by end-to-end accuracy, giving limited insight into when they help, when they hurt, and whether their behavior transfers under distribution shift or composition. We propose a paired-outcome measurement interface for auditing a single protocol step on exact-match tasks. For each instance, the interface records a baseline correctness bit E0∈{0,1}E_0\in\{0,1\} and a post-step correctness bit E1∈{0,1}E_1\in\{0,1\}, separating correction (E0=0→E1=1E_0=0\to E_1=1) from corruption (E0=1→E1=0E_0=1\to E_1=0) through two rates: c=Pr⁡(E1=1∣E0=0)c=\Pr(E_1=1\mid E_0=0) and γ=Pr⁡(E1=0∣E0=1)γ=\Pr(E_1=0\mid E_0=1). These rates predict accuracy changes and define a reusable empirical interface testable across seeds, mixtures, and pipelines. We identify three failure mechanisms. Under mixture shift, pooled estimates of (c,γ)(c,γ) become biased when calibration and deployment mixtures differ; conditioning on a difficulty proxy restores stability without additional model calls. Under presentation contamination, selection protocols alter the interface through stable presentation artifacts when candidate content is fixed. Under state insufficiency, the correctness bit may not carry enough history for multi-step pipelines to compose predictably; a Markov factorization test identifies when composition is valid and where additional state is needed. When a protocol step passes these diagnostics, it becomes an auditable module: gated by estimated gain, conditioned on a difficulty proxy to correct mixture bias, and composed into multi-step pipelines with predictable accuracy. We demonstrate these ideas on synthetic mathematical tasks and on GSM8K, where the calibrated interface correctly predicts when protocol steps should be activated or suppressed.

Fernando Reitich

Imens, LLC · Weston, Florida, USA

LLM EvaluationLLM AuditingLLM ReliabilityLanguage Model Robustness
AskPDF