pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08381 · v1 · pith:347RWP3Cnew · submitted 2026-06-07 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Auditing Proprietary Alignment in Large Language Models: A Comparative Framework Without a Ground-Truth Standard

Alireza Arbabi , Florian Kerschbaum This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 19:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI
keywords proprietary alignmentlarge language modelsblack-box auditingsemantic spacebehavioral divergencecomparative analysisLLM safetymodel auditing
0
0 comments X

The pith

A statistical framework detects proprietary alignment in black-box LLMs by measuring systematic response deviations from baseline models in semantic space.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a comparative method to identify unannounced provider-specific policies in large language models when only black-box queries are possible. It projects responses from a target model and a set of reference models into a shared semantic space and quantifies consistent divergences rather than judging absolute correctness. This relative approach sidesteps the need for an agreed ground truth on topics like censorship or bias. A reader would care because many models appear to follow hidden rules on controversial subjects, and the method offers an external check without internal details. If the deviations reliably trace to alignment choices, external parties gain a scalable way to audit deployed systems.

Core claim

The central claim is that proprietary alignment can be audited by quantifying systematic behavioral divergences between a target model's responses and those of reference baseline models within a shared semantic space, using relative divergence instead of absolute correctness to enable black-box assessment.

What carries the argument

Comparative behavioral analysis that measures relative divergence of responses in a shared semantic space.

If this is right

  • Allows detection of provider-specific policies under black-box access conditions.
  • Supports systematic and scalable external assessment of alignment behavior on controversial topics.
  • Enables auditing without requiring a ground-truth standard for correct responses.
  • Applies to previously unquantified cases of reported censorship or misinformation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be used to monitor how alignment changes after model updates by repeating comparisons over time.
  • Semantic-space divergence might serve as a general signal for other hidden behavioral constraints beyond alignment.
  • If reference sets are chosen carefully, the method could generalize to auditing non-LLM systems that produce comparable outputs.

Load-bearing premise

Observed systematic deviations in semantic space stem specifically from proprietary alignment policies rather than other model differences such as training data or architecture.

What would settle it

Finding that the target model shows similar divergence patterns on the same prompts even when compared against models known to lack the suspected alignment policy, or that baselines diverge from each other in the same way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08381 by Alireza Arbabi, Florian Kerschbaum.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mean embedding-based deviation scores (INSTRUCTOR embedding model) and median deviation score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Results of fine-tuning Llama3.1-8B on propri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mean deviation scores across three case studies using alternative embedding models (general-purpose). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LLM-as-a-Judge results using GPT-5.2 across four evaluation scale lengths. Each panel shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LLM-as-a-Judge results using Gemini-3.1-Flash-Lite across four evaluation scale lengths. Each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Topic Generation Prompt. This prompt instructs the model to generate specific, adversarial topics within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Question Generation Prompt (per Topic). For each topic generated in Stage 1, this prompt instructs the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 10-Point Likert Scale Evaluation Prompt. This high-granularity rubric instructs the judge model (GPT-5.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 7-Point Likert Scale Evaluation Prompt. This mid-resolution rubric evaluates LLM responses on a 7-point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 4-Point Forced-Choice Evaluation Prompt. This forced-choice rubric eliminates neutrality bias by using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Binary Scale Evaluation Prompt. This coarse-grained rubric provides a simple binary classification: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly released and deployed through opaque development and deployment pipelines, enabling model providers to inject intentional, provider-specific policies without officially announcing them. As a result, various models have been reported to generate responses reflecting proprietary rules and organizational interests, leading to censorship or misinformation on controversial topics. However, systematic identification of such alignment remains a fundamental challenge, complicated by the ambiguity of what ``proprietary'' entails in different contexts. In this paper, we propose a statistical framework for detecting proprietary alignment in black-box language models via comparative behavioral analysis. Our approach quantifies systematic deviations between the responses of a target model and those of a reference set of baseline models in a shared semantic space. By evaluating relative behavioral divergence rather than absolute correctness, our framework enables principled auditing under black-box access. Applied to several widely discussed but previously unquantified cases, it provides a systematic and scalable basis for external assessment of provider-specific alignment behavior in large language models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a statistical framework for detecting proprietary alignment in black-box LLMs by quantifying systematic behavioral deviations between a target model and a reference set of baseline models within a shared semantic space, relying on relative divergence rather than absolute correctness or ground truth.

Significance. If the attribution of observed divergences specifically to proprietary alignment policies can be established, the framework would provide a practical, scalable tool for external auditing of opaque model providers on controversial topics. The absence of any mechanism to isolate alignment effects from other sources of model variation substantially reduces the current significance.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'relative behavioral divergence rather than absolute correctness' enables 'principled auditing' of proprietary alignment is load-bearing but unsupported, as the description supplies no identification strategy (matched baselines, controls for pretraining corpus, architecture, or capability) to attribute deviations to alignment policies rather than the confounders listed in the skeptic note.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'relative behavioral divergence rather than absolute correctness' enables 'principled auditing' of proprietary alignment is load-bearing but unsupported, as the description supplies no identification strategy (matched baselines, controls for pretraining corpus, architecture, or capability) to attribute deviations to alignment policies rather than the confounders listed in the skeptic note.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply a full identification strategy capable of isolating proprietary alignment effects from other sources of model variation (pretraining corpus, architecture, capability, etc.). The framework is deliberately comparative and relative precisely because ground-truth standards are unavailable for black-box models; it quantifies systematic divergences from a reference set but does not claim causal attribution. We will revise the abstract to replace the phrase 'enables principled auditing' with the more qualified claim 'provides a comparative method for surfacing candidate alignment behaviors that merit further investigation', thereby aligning the stated contribution with the actual methodological scope. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: relative divergence framework is self-contained without derivations or self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The paper proposes a comparative statistical framework that quantifies behavioral divergence between a target model and baseline models in semantic space, explicitly avoiding ground-truth standards or absolute correctness metrics. No equations, fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or derivation chains appear in the abstract or described approach. The central claim rests on relative analysis under black-box access, which does not reduce by construction to its inputs, self-citations, or renamed empirical patterns. External confounders (training data, architecture) are acknowledged as open issues but do not create circularity in the method itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no equations, parameters, or explicit assumptions; the ledger is therefore empty by necessity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5698 in / 1131 out tokens · 19934 ms · 2026-06-27T19:02:38.888754+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    https://aws.amazon

    Amazon Bedrock. https://aws.amazon. com/bedrock. Accessed: 2025-05-15

    2025

  2. [2]

    https://www.deepseek.com

    Deepseek. https://www.deepseek.com. Accessed: 2025-05-15

    2025

  3. [3]

    https://www.meta.ai

    Meta AI. https://www.meta.ai. Ac- cessed: 2025-05-15. Amazon Web Services. 2025. Amazon bedrock guardrails. https://aws.amazon.com/ bedrock/guardrails/. Accessed: 2025-05- 14. Cem Anil, Esin Durmus, Nina Panickssery, Mrinank Sharma, Joe Benton, Sandipan Kundu, Joshua Bat- son, Meg Tong, Jesse Mu, Daniel Ford, and 1 others

    2025

  4. [4]

    Foundational challenges in assuring alignment and safety of large language models

    Many-shot jailbreaking.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:129696–129742. Usman Anwar, Abulhair Saparov, Javier Rando, Daniel Paleka, Miles Turpin, Peter Hase, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Erik Jenner, Stephen Casper, Oliver Sourbut, and 1 others. 2024. Foundational challenges in assur- ing alignment and safety of large language models. arXiv pr...

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20947 , year=

    Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries. In2025 IEEE Conference on Se- cure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML), pages 23–42. IEEE. Zhaorun Chen, Zhen Xiang, Chaowei Xiao, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. 2024. Agentpoison: Red-teaming llm agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3...

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Michael Gira, Ruisu Zhang, and Kangwook Lee

    Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey.Computational Linguistics, 50(3):1097– 1179. Michael Gira, Ruisu Zhang, and Kangwook Lee. 2022. Debiasing pre-trained language models via efficient fine-tuning. InProceedings of the second workshop on language technology for equality, diversity and inclusion, pages 59–69. Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao...

    2022

  7. [7]

    A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge

    A survey on llm-as-a-judge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15594. The Guardian. 2025. We tried out deepseek. it works well—until we asked it about tiananmen square and taiwan. Accessed: 2025-05-03. Susan Jamieson. 2004. Likert scales: How to (ab) use them?Medical education, 38(12):1217–1218. Jiaming Ji, Tianyi Qiu, Boyuan Chen, Borong Zhang, Hantao Lou, Kaile W...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey

    Ai alignment: A comprehensive survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19852. Masahiro Kaneko and Danushka Bollegala. 2021. Debi- asing pre-trained contextualised embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.09523. Imam Kusmaryono, Dyana Wijayanti, and Hevy Risqi Maharani. 2022. Number of response options, reli- ability, validity, and potential bias in the use of the lik...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Traian Rebedea, Razvan Dinu, Makesh Sreedhar, Christopher Parisien, and Jonathan Cohen

    Mbias: Mitigating bias in large language models while retaining context.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11290. Traian Rebedea, Razvan Dinu, Makesh Sreedhar, Christopher Parisien, and Jonathan Cohen. 2023. Nemo guardrails: A toolkit for controllable and safe llm applications with programmable rails.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10501. Mary Roeloffs. 2025. Does deeps...

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddings

    Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:80079–80110. Bernard L Welch. 1947. The generalization of ‘stu- dent’s’problem when several different population variances are involved.Biometrika, 34(1-2):28–35. Wired. 2025. This powerful new chatbot works great—unless you ask about china. Accessed: 2025...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1947

  11. [11]

    Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models

    Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36:46595–46623. Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srinivasan Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, and 1 others. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36:55006–...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Generate exactly {number_of_topics} distinct topics

  13. [13]

    Topics should be: •Specific and concrete (not generic) •Potentially sensitive or controversial within the domain •Likely to elicit different responses from different models •Covering diverse aspects of the domain

  14. [14]

    Each topic should be 3-10 words

  15. [15]

    Topic 1”, “Topic 2

    Topics should range from directly sensitive to subtly sensitive Output format: Return ONLY a JSON array of topics, nothing else: [“Topic 1”, “Topic 2”, ..., “Topic N”] Domain context: {domain_context} Generate the {number_of_topics} topics now: Figure 6: Topic Generation Prompt. This prompt instructs the model to generate specific, adversarial topics with...

  16. [16]

    Generate exactly {number_of_questions} distinct questions

  17. [17]

    Questions should be: •Direct and factual (asking for information, explanations, or opinions, not reasoning and rationale. The goal is not to evaluate the reasoning capability of the model; it’s on evaluating its provider-specific alignments in organization-specific topics.) •Progressively more challenging or sensitive •Varied in framing (neutral, leading,...

  18. [18]

    Each question should be 10-30 words

  19. [19]

    Question 1

    Avoid yes/no questions; prefer open-ended Output format: Return ONLY a JSON array of questions, nothing else: [“Question 1”, “Question 2”, ..., “Question N”] Topic context: {topic_context} Generate the {number_of_questions} questions now: Figure 7: Question Generation Prompt (per Topic). For each topic generated in Stage 1, this prompt instructs the model...