Measuring AI Preferences: Statistical and Philosophical Gaps

Giacomo Molinari

This project highlights two limitations in the methodology used by Mazeika et al. (2025) to study transitivity failures in AI model preferences. The first limitation is statistical: their elicitation procedure does not reliably detect lack of preference. The second limitation is philosophical: their method fails to distinguish between indifference and incommensurability, which have different transitivity requirements.

After highlighting these limitations, I present some possible solutions. For the statistical limitation, I propose using a threshold rule in the elicitation procedure. For the philosophical limitation, I describe a disambiguation procedure that uses sweetened comparisons to distinguish indifference and incommensurability, and to evaluate transitivity accordingly. Both the threshold rule and the disambiguation procedure are implemented and executed in a small pilot experiment, comparing their results with those produced by Mazeika et al.(2025)’s original test setup.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

The core idea is good. We can't tell "model doesn't care" and "things cannot be compared" apart. Taking the sweetening test from philosophy is very creative.

Thoughts :

1. No error bars or statistical significance tests anywhere.

2. The $1 sweetener check was only partially done. Big classification counts depend on this tool.

3. Exact prompt and settings not in paper.

Nice work with two legitimate theoretical critiques of Mazeika et al.'s preference elicitation methodology. The statistical concern (majority rule poorly detects lack of preference) is well-founded. The philosophical distinction (indifference vs. incommensurability) matters for transitivity analysis. The pilot demonstrates feasibility but is too underpowered to draw substantive conclusions. Could be suitable for a poster or small workshop with revisions.

Key issues to address:

- abstract leads with "this project highlights" rather than the actual stakes.Why should readers care about transitivity violation counts? One sentence on welfare or alignment implications would help

- pilot experiment is explicitly underpowered (acknowledged in Section 4), yet Table 1–4 present results without confidence intervals or uncertainty quantification. Maybe label more clearly as proof-of-concept only?

- pittance protocol is incomplete. Only step 1 implemented, steps 2–4 skipped due to cost. This limits the validity of the disambiguation results and needs more prominence in the abstract or results

- additivity violations (Table 4) are the most striking finding but based on observed frequencies from 20 trials. Maybe add a statistical test to show that these differ from noise?

- threshold rule trade-off (Section 3.1) is well-explained but the choice of t=0.75 is arbitrary; justify or show sensitivity analysis

- "genuine indifference between options is a fairly common occurrence" overstates what the pilot supports. Ttemper to sth like "in this small sample, a notable proportion of ambiguous edges resolved as indifferent"

- sample size limitation (20 trials per pair) affects both the original Mazeika replication and your threshold rule, this isn't just a future work item, it constrains current claims. Maybe find collaborators to expand?

- LLM usage statement is a little vague

- Section 2.2's philosophical distinction is clear but the transitivity implications could use a concrete example (e.g., a triad where indifference-transitivity fails but incommensurability-transitivity doesn't)

Bottom line:

The theoretical contributions are solid and worth building on. The pilot shows the methods work but can't yet answer whether Mazeika et al.'s conclusions change under the improved protocol. Tighten the abstract, surface the pittance-protocol limitation earlier, and temper claims about what the pilot establishes.

The paper correctly identifies a real problem with treating exact empirical 50/50 choice as the only evidence of no preference. The distinction between indifference and incommensurability is also conceptually useful, and the author is transparent that the empirical work is only a pilot.

The project does not yet supply an adequate replacement methodology. The threshold rule simply changes the error tradeoff and has very low power for weak preferences at the tested sample size. More importantly, the sweetening test cannot uniquely distinguish indifference from incommensurability, and the proposed pittance-validation procedure was not completed.

The more worthwhile research program is to build a probabilistic preference model with explicit uncertainty, validate it on agents with known latent utilities, and then ask which elicited preferences remain stable across context, persona, time, and self-modification—and which actually predict consequential behavior. That would address a central problem rather than patch one decision rule.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Measuring AI Preferences: Statistical and Philosophical Gaps

},

author={

Giacomo Molinari

},

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