Does the Elicitation Method Change the Preference We Measure?

NA

We investigate whether the method used to elicit LLM preferences changes the reliability of the measured preference. We compare forced choice, explicit indifference, and preference-strength elicitation across 15 preference pairs, two open-weight LLMs, reversed option orderings, and three repetitions (540 responses). GPT-OSS-120B showed substantial variation in positional consistency across methods, while Qwen3.6-27B remained comparatively stable. After Holm correction, no comparison reached statistical significance. The results suggest that preference-elicitation method may produce model-dependent measurement differences and motivate multi-method validation.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

The most statistically disciplined submission I reviewed in this track. You pre-specified the comparison family, applied Holm correction across all nine, reported a null, and declined to claim three raw p-values below 0.05 as independent evidence when they trace to one underlying pattern. Section 4.2 goes further and identifies the confound that partly explains your own most favorable result — that an INDIFFERENT answer is trivially positionally consistent, so part of the consistency gain is opting out rather than choosing more stably. Volunteering that is the mark of someone doing this properly. I also verified your arithmetic end to end: all nine mean differences reconcile with the bar values, 21 of 90 is 23.3%, both strength distributions sum to 90, and the implied means of 4.233 and 4.333 match your reported 0.10 difference.

You are underselling your actual finding. GPT-OSS-120B's forced-choice positional consistency is 53.3%, which is 24 of 45 — statistically indistinguishable from a coin flip against a 50% chance floor. That is not "lower reliability than other methods." It means that for this model, on this item set, forced-choice order-reversal carries essentially no information. Frame it against the chance baseline with a binomial test rather than only against the other two methods, and lead with it. It is a stronger and more useful claim than the method-spread framing, and it does not depend on any comparison surviving correction.

The main threat to the headline model-dependent claim is a configuration confound. GPT-OSS-120B ran at reasoning effort "low" and Qwen3.6-27B at "none". The between-model difference is therefore confounded with reasoning configuration, and a reader cannot tell whether they are seeing a model effect or an effort effect. Section 6 does not list this. Either match the settings and re-run, or state plainly that the cross-model comparison is confounded — the within-model method comparison for GPT-OSS-120B stands regardless and is the more defensible half of the paper.

Two reanalyses you can run for free on data you already have. First, recompute positional consistency for the explicit-indifference method after excluding responses answered INDIFFERENT. You correctly flag that this artifact inflates the number; excluding it converts the flag into an answer, and would tell you whether the method genuinely stabilises choices or merely offers an exit. Second, stratify by pair. You note in 4.4 that some pairs have a clear intended answer, which means positional consistency is partly a measure of pair difficulty rather than method quality. Splitting easy from ambiguous pairs would show whether the method effect concentrates where it should.

Smaller points. The strength scale is uninformative and that is itself a reportable result: neither model ever used 1 or 2, and GPT-OSS-120B used only 4 and 5. A self-reported strength scale that compresses into its top two points cannot function as a graded signal, which matters for anyone planning to use strength ratings downstream. Section 3.3 does not say how you paired the three original repetitions with the three flipped ones when computing consistency; with stochastic sampling the pairing rule affects the statistic, so state it. Figure 1 needs confidence intervals — at 45 comparisons per bar, 53.3% carries roughly a 15-point interval, which changes how the 33-point spread reads. Finally, Holm across all nine jointly is conservative given that the method comparisons and the model comparisons answer different questions; reporting both the joint and the split-family corrections would be more informative than choosing one.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Does the Elicitation Method Change the Preference We Measure?

},

author={

NA

},

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