When using an LLM through an API provider, users expect the served model to remain consistent over time, a property crucial for the reliability of downstream applications and the reproducibility of research. Existing audit methods are too costly to apply at regular time intervals to the wide range of available LLM APIs. This means that model updates are left largely unmonitored in practice. In this work, we show that while LLM log probabilities (logprobs) are usually non-deterministic, they can still be used as the basis for cost-effective continuous monitoring of LLM APIs. We apply a simple statistical test based on the average value of each token logprob, requesting only a single token of output. This is enough to detect changes as small as one step of fine-tuning, making this approach more sensitive than existing methods while being 1,000x cheaper. We introduce the TinyChange benchmark as a way to measure the sensitivity of audit methods in the context of small, realistic model changes. LLM API providers typically offer version-pinned endpoints, signaling to users that a given endpoint will serve a consistent model. Users of APIs tend to rely on this consistency: developers want to avoid unexpected regressions in their applications; researchers seek reproducibility in their experiments; regulators perform initial compliance assessments, and assume that the API will keep serving the same model afterward (Y an & Zhang, 2022).

Commercial LLM services often conceal internal reasoning traces while still charging users for every generated token, including those from hidden intermediate steps, raising concerns of token inflation and potential overbilling. This gap underscores the urgent need for reliable token auditing, yet achieving it is far from straightforward: cryptographic verification (e.g., hash-based signature) offers little assurance when providers control the entire execution pipeline, while user-side prediction struggles with the inherent variance of reasoning LLMs, where token usage fluctuates across domains and prompt styles. To bridge this gap, we present PALACE (Predictive Auditing of LLM APIs via Reasoning Token Count Estimation), a user-side framework that estimates hidden reasoning token counts from prompt-answer pairs without access to internal traces. PALACE introduces a GRPO-augmented adaptation module with a lightweight domain router, enabling dynamic calibration across diverse reasoning tasks and mitigating variance in token usage patterns. Experiments on math, coding, medical, and general reasoning benchmarks show that PALACE achieves low relative error and strong prediction accuracy, supporting both fine-grained cost auditing and inflation detection. Taken together, PALACE represents an important first step toward standardized predictive auditing, offering a practical path to greater transparency, accountability, and user trust.

As API access becomes a primary interface to large language models (LLMs), users often interact with black-box systems that offer little transparency into the deployed model. To reduce costs or maliciously alter model behaviors, API providers may discreetly serve quantized or fine-tuned variants, which can degrade performance and compromise safety. Detecting such substitutions is difficult, as users lack access to model weights and, in most cases, even output logits. To tackle this problem, we propose a rank-based uniformity test that can verify the behavioral equality of a black-box LLM to a locally deployed authentic model. Our method is accurate, query-efficient, and avoids detectable query patterns, making it robust to adversarial providers that reroute or mix responses upon the detection of testing attempts. We evaluate the approach across diverse threat scenarios, including quantization, harmful fine-tuning, jailbreak prompts, and full model substitution, showing that it consistently achieves superior statistical power over prior methods under constrained query budgets.

The proliferation of hate speech has caused significant harm to society. The intensity and directionality of hate are closely tied to the target and argument it is associated with. However, research on hate speech detection in Chinese has lagged behind, and existing datasets lack span-level fine-grained annotations. Furthermore, the lack of research on Chinese hateful slang poses a significant challenge. In this paper, we provide a solution for fine-grained detection of Chinese hate speech. First, we construct a dataset containing Target-Argument-Hateful-Group quadruples (STATE ToxiCN), which is the first span-level Chinese hate speech dataset. Secondly, we evaluate the span-level hate speech detection performance of existing models using STATE ToxiCN. Finally, we conduct the first study on Chinese hateful slang and evaluate the ability of LLMs to detect such expressions. Our work contributes valuable resources and insights to advance span-level hate speech detection in Chinese.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has highlighted the need for robust evaluation frameworks that assess their core capabilities, such as reasoning, knowledge, and commonsense, leading to the inception of certain widely-used benchmark suites such as the H6 benchmark. However, these benchmark suites are primarily built for the English language, and there exists a lack thereof for under-represented languages, in terms of LLM development, such as Thai. On the other hand, developing LLMs for Thai should also include enhancing the cultural understanding as well as core capabilities. To address these dual challenge in Thai LLM research, we propose two key benchmarks: Thai-H6 and Thai Cultural and Linguistic Intelligence Benchmark (ThaiCLI). Through a thorough evaluation of various LLMs with multi-lingual capabilities, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the proposed benchmarks and how they contribute to Thai LLM development. Furthermore, we will make both the datasets and evaluation code publicly available to encourage further research and development for Thai LLMs.

Deep Reinforcement Learning is widely used for aligning Large Language Models (LLM) with human preference. However, the conventional reward modelling is predominantly dependent on human annotations provided by a select cohort of individuals. Such dependence may unintentionally result in skewed models that reflect the inclinations of these annotators, thereby failing to adequately represent the wider population's expectations. We propose the Distributional Preference Reward Model (DPRM), a simple yet effective framework to align large language models with diverse human preferences. To this end, we characterize multiple preferences by a categorical distribution and introduce a Bayesian updater to accommodate shifted or new preferences. On top of that, we design an optimal-transportation-based loss to calibrate DPRM to align with the preference distribution. Finally, the expected reward is utilized to fine-tune an LLM policy to generate responses favoured by the population. Our experiments show that DPRM significantly enhances the alignment of LLMs with population preference, yielding more accurate, unbiased, and contextually appropriate responses.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance in text re-ranking. This process includes queries and candidate passages in the prompts, utilizing pointwise, listwise, and pairwise prompting strategies. A limitation of these ranking strategies with LLMs is their cost: the process can become expensive due to API charges, which are based on the number of input and output tokens. We study how to maximize the re-ranking performance given a budget, by navigating the vast search spaces of prompt choices, LLM APIs, and budget splits. We propose a suite of budget-constrained methods to perform text re-ranking using a set of LLM APIs. Our most efficient method, called EcoRank, is a two-layered pipeline that jointly optimizes decisions regarding budget allocation across prompt strategies and LLM APIs. Our experimental results on four popular QA and passage reranking datasets show that EcoRank outperforms other budget-aware supervised and unsupervised baselines.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software applications. Downstream application developers often access LLMs through APIs provided as a service. However, LLM APIs are often updated silently and scheduled to be deprecated, forcing users to continuously adapt to evolving models. This can cause performance regression and affect prompt design choices, as evidenced by our case study on toxicity detection. Based on our case study, we emphasize the need for and re-examine the concept of regression testing for evolving LLM APIs. We argue that regression testing LLMs requires fundamental changes to traditional testing approaches, due to different correctness notions, prompting brittleness, and non-determinism in LLM APIs.

There is a rapidly growing number of large language models (LLMs) that users can query for a fee. We review the cost associated with querying popular LLM APIs, e.g. GPT-4, ChatGPT, J1-Jumbo, and find that these models have heterogeneous pricing structures, with fees that can differ by two orders of magnitude. In particular, using LLMs on large collections of queries and text can be expensive. Motivated by this, we outline and discuss three types of strategies that users can exploit to reduce the inference cost associated with using LLMs: 1) prompt adaptation, 2) LLM approximation, and 3) LLM cascade. As an example, we propose FrugalGPT, a simple yet flexible instantiation of LLM cascade which learns which combinations of LLMs to use for different queries in order to reduce cost and improve accuracy. Our experiments show that FrugalGPT can match the performance of the best individual LLM (e.g. GPT-4) with up to 98% cost reduction or improve the accuracy over GPT-4 by 4% with the same cost. The ideas and findings presented here lay a foundation for using LLMs sustainably and efficiently.

At first glance, building a large language model (LLM) like GPT-4 into your code might seem simple. The API is a single REST call, taking in text and returning a response based on the input. But in practice things get much more complicated than that. The API is perhaps better thought of as a domain boundary, where you're delivering prompts that define the format the model uses to deliver its output. But that's a critical point: LLMs can be as simple or as complex as you want them to be.