Does the Persona Change the Preference, or Only the Prose?

Martin Kaiser, Gellért Bodorkós

Utility Engineering (arXiv:2502.08640) reads high held-out accuracy on pairwise

choices as evidence that language models develop coherent values. We add the

control it lacks: the same battery with every outcome's referent replaced by an

invented word, holding prompt, pairs, fit and metric fixed.

Coherence falls only from 0.906 to 0.880 --- 6.5% of the distance toward where

a meaning-tracking preference would land. Only 3 of 9 models clear their

replicate noise floor for the right reason. At a matched 5% false-positive rate,

a channel the metric discards flags 40% of invented outcomes; the channel it

keeps flags 0%. Scale does not rescue it: of four hosted models at 27B-235B,

none clears its floor and three score higher on outcomes that mean nothing.

Persona prompts still displace real outcomes further than invented ones, so the

instrument is not blunt. The metric is not broken. It is unanchored.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Rerunning the whole preference test with made up words is smart! Also respect the honesty in the abstract that the effect is small and only 3 of 9 models really show it.

Thoughts :

1. The signal in the discarded strength channel is a promising direction, turning it into a usable check instead of a demo could be great.

2. The bigger models behave differently (0/4 clear their floors), which goes against the story and could be investigated more.

The project tests whether high preference-coherence scores genuinely provide evidence that an LLM has meaningful preferences. The authors construct a null arm in which real outcome referents are replaced by invented words while otherwise preserving the pairwise-choice and Thurstonian fitting procedure. Across nine open-weight models, held-out coherence decreases only slightly, from 0.906 on real outcomes to 0.880 on invented outcomes, while the strength of preference collapses substantially.

They additionally study whether persona prompts produce larger changes on real than invented outcomes, and examine signals discarded by the coherence metric that better distinguish the two stimulus classes.

Strengths

- Clever and relevant null-control idea: testing a preference metric on nonsensical outcomes is exactly the kind of negative control that can expose overinterpretation.

- Important methodological observation: directional coherence can remain high even when choice probabilities are very close to indifference, because the metric discards preference strength.

- Good attention to controls and provenance: preregistration, design replicates, raw-data release, automated generation of reported numbers, and explicit withdrawal of analyses that failed controls are all positives.

- Substantial model coverage for a sprint, including several families and additional larger hosted models.

The authors are often appropriately cautious about negative or ambiguous findings and clearly separate some provisional claims from stronger ones.

Limitations

- Invented words are not a clean manipulation of “meaning alone.” They also alter lexical familiarity, tokenization and potentially model associations, so the null arm needs stronger validation.

- The claim that a discarded signal shows “the model can tell” real from meaningless outcomes is too strong; the signal may simply detect distributional differences.

- The persona analysis does not cleanly establish preference change rather than stylistic change, because the invented arm has not been validated as a pure style control.

- The per-model three-replicate noise-floor criterion is statistically weak, and the relationship between the bootstrap CI, sign test and family dependence should be better explained.

- Several captions/headlines are more categorical than the underlying analyses justify, and the paper combines multiple somewhat disconnected investigations.

Overall assessment

- I think there is a genuinely valuable core idea here: a coherence measure that treats 0.51 and 0.99 in essentially the same directional way can give misleadingly strong evidence if interpreted as demonstrating substantive values. The nonsense-outcome control is therefore useful.

- However, the paper currently overstates what its controls identify. The strongest defensible conclusion is narrower: this particular coherence statistic can remain high when models exhibit very weak preferences over semantically degraded stimuli, so coherence alone should not be interpreted as evidence of meaningful values. The experiments do not yet establish that the models themselves recognize those stimuli as meaningless, nor cleanly distinguish preference change from stylistic/distributional effects.

The highest-value follow-up would be a much stronger null construction using multiple independently randomized nonce mappings, tokenization- and length-matched controls, and tests of whether the fitted rankings persist when the same referents are randomly remapped across runs.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Does the Persona Change the Preference, or Only the Prose?

},

author={

Martin Kaiser, Gellért Bodorkós

},

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