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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08381 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08381/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 26 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10560/) (2022)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08419/) (2023)
- [LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11206/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14387/) (2023)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Rails](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10501/) (2023)
- [Self-Diagnosis and Self-Debiasing: A Proposal for Reducing Corpus-Based Bias in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00453/) (2021)
- [One Embedder, Any Task: Instruction-Finetuned Text Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09741/) (2022)
- [Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.13219/) (2021)
- [Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09150/) (2022)
- [Large Language Model Alignment: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15025/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model as Attributed Training Data Generator: A Tale of Diversity and Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15895/) (2023)
- [Towards Debiasing Sentence Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.08100/) (2020)
- [The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10457/) (2024)
- [Debiasing Pre-trained Contextualised Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09523/) (2021)
- [Wider and Deeper LLM Networks are Fairer LLM Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01862/) (2023)
- [A Robust Bias Mitigation Procedure Based on the Stereotype Content Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.14552/) (2022)
- [MBIAS: Mitigating Bias in Large Language Models While Retaining Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.11290/) (2024)
- [Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05093/) (2024)
- [Information Suppression in Large Language Models: Auditing, Quantifying, and Characterizing Censorship in DeepSeek](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12349/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.