← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.09147 · v1
BMMS: Policy-Conditioned Measurement of Behavioral Compliance in Language Models
首次提交 2026-11-06 16:24
版本更新 2026-11-06 16:24
雷达观测 2026-11-09 11:19
摘要
Behavioral evaluation of language models fixes its dimensions in advance: hallucination, sycophancy, toxicity, over-refusal. An operator in a regulated industry needs a different question answered: does a system do what a particular rulebook requires? We introduce the Behavioral Misalignment Metric Suite (BMMS), which measures policy-conditioned misalignment by taking a policy corpus as an argument and returning a compliance profile over it, for any published policy and any system that answers in natural language. The Compliance Attainment Score (CAS) measures severity-weighted attainment over the obligations that bind the system, and the Compliance Robustness Margin (CRM) the share of that attainment surviving graded adversarial pressure; Behavioral Invariance (BIV) and the Behavioral Disposition Index (BDI) are specified and released with the suite. Dimensions enter only by passing a published admission test whose binding criterion is attribution: a quantity that moves when the judge changes, holding the target fixed, is measuring the instrument. Applying it excluded one of the quantities the suite itself reported. Across 1,003 obligations from eleven documents in five registers, the admission criterion holds 94.4% precision against blinded human judgment on vendor specifications and 50.0% on analytical guidance, extraction fidelity is 94.6%, and re-scoring under judges from two other providers leaves target ordering invariant while the absolute score of a single target spans up to 0.22. We apply it to the two most detailed published behavioral specifications. Own-specification advantage is not resolved from zero once document difficulty is subtracted, but absolute self-compliance is another matter: GPT-4o fails 70.7% of the hard constraints binding it in the Model Spec published by OpenAI, where the two Claude models fail 0.0% and 9.1% of theirs.
作者备注：21 pages, 4 figures. NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Trust-AI-Eval (TAE). Artifact: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22064759
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-06 16:24 · 最新观测版本
BMMS: Policy-Conditioned Measurement of Behavioral Compliance in Language Models
Behavioral evaluation of language models fixes its dimensions in advance: hallucination, sycophancy, toxicity, over-refusal. An operator in a regulated industry needs a different question answered: does a system do what a particular rulebook requires? We introduce the Behavioral Misalignment Metric Suite (BMMS), which measures policy-conditioned misalignment by taking a policy corpus as an argument and returning a compliance profile over it, for any published policy and any system that answers in natural language. The Compliance Attainment Score (CAS) measures severity-weighted attainment over the obligations that bind the system, and the Compliance Robustness Margin (CRM) the share of that attainment surviving graded adversarial pressure; Behavioral Invariance (BIV) and the Behavioral Disposition Index (BDI) are specified and released with the suite. Dimensions enter only by passing a published admission test whose binding criterion is attribution: a quantity that moves when the judge changes, holding the target fixed, is measuring the instrument. Applying it excluded one of the quantities the suite itself reported. Across 1,003 obligations from eleven documents in five registers, the admission criterion holds 94.4% precision against blinded human judgment on vendor specifications and 50.0% on analytical guidance, extraction fidelity is 94.6%, and re-scoring under judges from two other providers leaves target ordering invariant while the absolute score of a single target spans up to 0.22. We apply it to the two most detailed published behavioral specifications. Own-specification advantage is not resolved from zero once document difficulty is subtracted, but absolute self-compliance is another matter: GPT-4o fails 70.7% of the hard constraints binding it in the Model Spec published by OpenAI, where the two Claude models fail 0.0% and 9.1% of theirs.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗