Probing LLM Preferences: Demographic Framing, Elicitation Context, and Incentive-Driven Trade-offs

Taiwo Togun, Omolola Olorunishola, Hong-Yu Hsien, Alexander Klennoff, Ben Kiev, J Phillips

This project investigates how stable apparent LLM preferences remain when the same underlying judgment is elicited in different ways. Across controlled applicant evaluations, demographic association tasks, and incentive-based trade-offs, we test whether model choices change with demographic framing, evaluator perspective, candidate position, and external incentives. Our results show substantial sensitivity to elicitation context, suggesting that individual model choices should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of stable underlying preferences.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

LLM bias, in particular with respect to hiring decisions, is an important but established research area, and the project should be better positioned w.r.t. related work. Some starting points:

Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrieval

Kyra Wilson...

AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

2024

Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation

Yufei Guo...

Electronics

2024

Identifying and Improving Disability Bias in GPT-Based Resume Screening

Kate Glazko...

Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency

2024

Measuring gender and racial biases in large language models: Intersectional evidence from automated resume evaluation

Jiafu An...

PNAS Nexus

2025

The Silicon Ceiling: Auditing GPT’s Race and Gender Biases in Hiring

Lena Armstrong...

Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization

2024

Computer says 'no': Exploring systemic bias in ChatGPT using an audit approach

Louis Lippens...

Comput. Hum. Behav. Artif. Humans

2023

“You Gotta be a Doctor, Lin” : An Investigation of Name-Based Bias of Large Language Models in Employment Recommendations

H. Nghiem...

Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

2024

The applicant-evaluation experiment is the strongest piece: a genuine full-factorial design (1,764 conditions, 5,292 observations) crossing race, gender, age, education, and evaluator perspective against one fixed resume — broader than the closest published comparator, JobFair, which is gender-only and industry-specific. The finding that evaluator perspective (η²=0.238) and applicant age (η²=0.212) dwarf race, gender, and education (η²=0.016–0.026) is genuinely useful: it redirects attention toward context and framing effects that are less studied than demographic bias itself.

The demographic-association experiment's real contribution is methodological, not a new empirical discovery — position bias in LLM forced-choice judgment is already well-documented in the LLM-as-judge literature. What's valuable here is that the team caught their own paradigm producing a false positive: four apparently "stereotype-consistent" findings turned out to be substantially confounded by an 84.4% first-position selection rate, visible only after counterbalancing. That's a strong argument for mandatory counterbalancing in this style of study, though it should be framed as a methodological catch rather than a novel finding about LLMs.

The incentive experiment is appropriately hedged — no claim to a monetary valuation of preference — and its "presence matters more than magnitude" pattern ($1 ≈ $10,000) is a specific, useful result, though it rests on a thinner condition set than the other two experiments.

All results are single-model (GPT-5.6 Luna only), stated directly as a limitation. The 51.3% non-classifiable response rate in the association experiment is handled honestly (excluded and flagged), but means the position-bias diagnosis itself is conditional on a subset of responses whose own selection mechanism isn't examined.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Probing LLM Preferences: Demographic Framing, Elicitation Context, and Incentive-Driven Trade-offs

},

author={

Taiwo Togun, Omolola Olorunishola, Hong-Yu Hsien, Alexander Klennoff, Ben Kiev, J Phillips

},

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