Artificial Intelligence · 25.08.2026, 12:16 UTC
STONIC: A Layered Measurement Contract for LLM Value Profiling
| Schweregrad | info |
|---|---|
| Kategorie | Artificial Intelligence |
| Quelle | arXiv cs.CL ↗ |
| Veröffentlicht | 25.08.2026 UTC |
Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.
arXiv:2608.23411v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM value studies often merge questionnaire ratings, pairwise choices, and values inferred from generated text into one profile. That merge assumes that the three observations describe the same stable preference. STONIC tests this assumption on 5,144 situations from four banks and 35 fixed model configurations. It compares responses rated in isolation, choices made under counterbalanced conflict, spontaneous answers, and later choices between a model's own answer and authored alternatives. 10 of 17 configurations with usable behavioral data preserve the endorsement-choice relation across banks. Every one of the 17 eligible configurations prefers its own earlier answer (median effect 0.790), although option position changes the choice rate in every eligible configuration. Profile shape transfers most strongly from ratings to conflict choices and weakens for spontaneous text. Three-way annotation of 200 L3 responses provides a task-local check of the semantic audit: FULCRA agrees most closely with the human majority, while DeBERTa retains useful rank information after calibration. Hidden states encode the completed decision more clearly than the prompt alone. Thus the models show reproducible behavioral continuity, but the evidence does not support one scorer-independent value identity across interfaces.
Maßnahmen
⬇ Als MarkdownVerwandte Beiträge
- info Multi-Agent Orchestration with the Common-Sense Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs for Autonomous Driving
- info Decomposition Attacks Across Unlinkable Identities: Limits of Stateful Defenses for LLM Services
- info Towards Understanding On-Policy Distillation through the Lens of Test-Time Scaling
- info Do LLM Recommenders Know When They're Hallucinating? Auditing Confidence Calibration in Catalog Faithfulness