Distress Representations in Language Models Are Referent-Specific

Ayodeji Adesegun , Moyinoluwa Ogunjobi

AI welfare evaluations read internal “distress” directions as evidence about a model’s condition, but every published battery confounds it with the sentiment of the text and with distress attributed to others. Holding the event fixed, we vary only its referent: the model itself, another language model, or a fictional android, crossed with valence, so the referent cancels within each frame. Across six open-weight models (0.5B–14B), self- and other-referential distress vectors separate: Δ peaks at +0.348 (95% CI [+0.284, +0.403]), significant in 39 of 40 cells against reliability ceilings of 0.894–0.972. Self-reported valence tracks the self-specific residual (β = −0.33) as strongly as the shared component (β = −0.35). A second-person control with a non-self referent shows the separation is referential, not grammatical. Referential controls should be standard in welfare evaluations; none currently use them.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Strong, well-controlled evidence that distress representations are referent-specific. I particularly liked the matched referential design, the reliability ceilings, and validation across multiple model families rather than a single model. The results are strong on their own terms: 39 of 40 cells show significant self/other separation among the models passing the referent check, and the distinction survives the no-experiences persona. The main limitation for me is the connection between this representational result and downstream behavior or welfare-relevant outcomes. What practical decision changes once we know these directions differ? Establishing whether the self-specific component causally influences behavior would make the broader significance substantially clearer.

- This project concerns a very important question. Much prior work does not sufficiently distinguish between the referent of putative welfare-relevant representations, so I think this is a valuable direction.

- The prose could sometimes be simplified. As a reader of the abstract, for example, I have no idea what “Δ peaks at +0.348” means, what the units or natural scale of Δ are, or how large +0.348 should be considered. More intuition would make the headline results much easier to interpret.

- There are some apparent signs of LLM-assisted writing in the manuscript. That is absolutely fine, but for future versions the authors may want to try to find more of their own voice. Some of the more promotional writing could also be toned down. For example, instead of “We supply exactly that control”, why not simply say “We seek to fill this gap”?

- The methods section moves far too quickly for me. Table 1 gives one helpful example of the construction, but I would have liked to see more examples of the actual distress and neutral items used to construct v_r, and more explanation of how the battery was constructed. By contrast, technical details such as the Spearman–Brown correction could readily be moved to an appendix.

- The discussion of the manipulation check was initially quite confusing. The preregistered self-ascription check appears not to have worked at all for some models, and was therefore replaced with a different referent-identification task before the primary data were collected. The replacement check seems to work reasonably well. Given how central successful referent discrimination is to the interpretation of the results, I would have liked substantially more explanation and discussion of this issue.

- The manuscript repeatedly refers to a preregistration. Where exactly can this be found?

- For the key outcome of interest, Δ, I would have liked considerably more intuition about its interpretation. What is its theoretical and practically relevant maximum? What should count as a large or small value? Is not any reliably positive difference already informative? The paper explains how Δ is constructed and why Δ > 0 is evidence of separation, but it is much less clear how its magnitude should be interpreted.

- An especially useful next step would be to steer models along the separate representational directions and examine how downstream behaviour differs. The authors already propose steering the self-specific residual, which seems right. It would be particularly interesting to compare interventions on the self-specific and shared/other-referential components: does only the self-specific component produce the kinds of downstream effects that would make it especially relevant to welfare evaluation?

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Distress Representations in Language Models Are Referent-Specific

},

author={

Ayodeji Adesegun , Moyinoluwa Ogunjobi

},

date={

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
Apart Research logo

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923

Apart Research logo

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923

Apart Research logo

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
Apart Research logo

Sign up to stay updated on the
latest news, research, and events

Google Scholar icon

Apart Research Inc · 1500 N Grant St, Ste R, Denver, CO 80203 · +1 (720) 408-1923