Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces an automated contrastive evaluation pipeline to audit behavioral changes in LLMs after interventions. The method compares multi-token generations of a base model and an intervened model across aligned prompts, generating statistically validated natural language hypotheses describing model differences. Experiments in synthetic and real-world settings (reasoning distillation, knowledge editing, unlearning) demonstrate the pipeline's ability to recover intended and unexpected behavioral shifts, distinguish intervention magnitudes, and avoid hallucinating differences.
Interventions on LLMs, like knowledge editing or unlearning, can have surprising side effects that this automated pipeline can now surface and validate.
We present an automated, contrastive evaluation pipeline for auditing the behavioral impact of interventions on large language models. Given a base model $M_1$ and an intervention model $M_2$, our method compares their free-form, multi-token generations across aligned prompt contexts and produces human-readable, statistically validated natural-language hypotheses describing how the models differ, along with recurring themes that summarize patterns across validated hypotheses. We evaluate the approach in synthetic setting by injecting known behavioral changes and showing that the pipeline reliably recovers them. We then apply it to three real-world interventions, reasoning distillation, knowledge editing and unlearning, demonstrating that the method surfaces both intended and unexpected behavioral shifts, distinguishes large from subtle interventions, and does not hallucinate differences when effects are absent or misaligned with the prompt bank. Overall, the pipeline provides a statistically grounded and interpretable tool for post-hoc auditing of intervention-induced changes in model behavior.
