Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

A Calibrated Instrument for Detecting Disposition Drift in Language Models

Jerry Kaplan

Published

Oct 19, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

20% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 19, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Before language models are released, they are tested for harmful traits such as willingness to carry out dangerous requests, deception, power seeking, and sycophancy. The safe behavior these tests certify may degrade as models are modified, by topical fine-tuning, new training data, or changes to settings such as the depth of their reasoning. Most work reports such drift as single summary rates scored by another AI model, without the error analysis needed to interpret them. We adapt a calibrated measurement methodology recently developed for assessing how inference optimizations affect the quality of model outputs. Applying it to several misalignment dimensions in two open-weight models, we first establish the instrument's precision, showing that shifts of a few percentage points can be reliably detected. We then induce drift deliberately by fine-tuning on correct and on subtly harmful medical and financial advice; harmful advice induces a far greater shift than correct advice. Most strikingly, a model that reasons before answering can conceal the shift almost entirely in its answers, even though a direct reading of its internal state shows that its disposition has moved. With reasoning switched off, the same model shifts steadily as the share of harmful advice in its training grows. These results demonstrate the importance of testing safety with reasoning turned both on and off.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Before language models are released, they are tested for harmful traits such as willingness to carry out dangerous requests, deception, power seeking, and sycophancy."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Before language models are released, they are tested for harmful traits such as willingness to carry out dangerous requests, deception, power seeking, and sycophancy."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Before language models are released, they are tested for harmful traits such as willingness to carry out dangerous requests, deception, power seeking, and sycophancy."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Before language models are released, they are tested for harmful traits such as willingness to carry out dangerous requests, deception, power seeking, and sycophancy."

Reported Metrics

partial

Precision

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Applying it to several misalignment dimensions in two open-weight models, we first establish the instrument's precision, showing that shifts of a few percentage points can be reliably detected."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

precision
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Medicine
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Before language models are released, they are tested for harmful traits such as willingness to carry out dangerous requests, deception, power seeking, and sycophancy.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Before language models are released, they are tested for harmful traits such as willingness to carry out dangerous requests, deception, power seeking, and sycophancy.
  • The safe behavior these tests certify may degrade as models are modified, by topical fine-tuning, new training data, or changes to settings such as the depth of their reasoning.
  • Most work reports such drift as single summary rates scored by another AI model, without the error analysis needed to interpret them.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • These results demonstrate the importance of testing safety with reasoning turned both on and off.

Why it matters for eval

  • These results demonstrate the importance of testing safety with reasoning turned both on and off.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: precision