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

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.

Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs

The growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) has amplified concerns regarding their inherent biases, raising critical questions about their fairness, safety, and societal impact. However, quantifying LLM bias remains a fundamental challenge, complicated by the ambiguity of what "bias" entails. This challenge grows as new models emerge rapidly and gain widespread use, while introducing potential biases that have not been systematically assessed. In this paper, we propose the Relative Bias framework, a method designed to assess how an LLM's behavior deviates from other LLMs within a specified target domain. We introduce two complementary methodologies: (1) Embedding Transformation analysis, which captures relative bias patterns through sentence representations over the embedding space, and (2) LLM-as-a-Judge, which employs a language model to evaluate outputs comparatively. Applying our framework to several case studies on bias and alignment scenarios following by statistical tests for validation, we find strong alignment between the two scoring methods, offering a systematic, scalable, and statistically grounded approach for comparative bias analysis in LLMs.