Vision-language models can exhibit visual concept-conditioned divergence: given images containing demographic features, corporate logos, or ideological symbols, some models produce unusually uniform responses that differ from what peer models say about the same input. These behaviors evade text-only audits because visual concepts cannot be isolated or substituted the way text tokens can. We present VISTA (Visual Inconsistency Screening Through Analysis), a black-box cross-model audit that couples semantic entropy with distribution-based divergence to flag model-specific anomalies. In a controlled study, we implant concept-conditioned stances in three VLMs via fine-tuning on small biased datasets and confirm that VISTA detects them. Auditing six VLMs across 19 topics, VISTA surfaces 142 high-suspicion cases (1.2%) and identifies selective refusal as a previously unreported divergence pattern, where models refuse demographic queries at rates varying from 0 to 65% across groups.
Visible tests are a common gate for LLM-generated code, but passing them does not certify specification correctness. We study a deployment-like monitoring problem: after code has passed public tests, can a weaker LLM verifier identify the residual hidden bugs? We introduce Code Monitor Red Teaming, a monitor-red-teaming protocol that fixes a public-check information boundary while varying generator pressure, verifier scaffolding, and weak-to-strong capability. We instantiate it as CodeMonitorBench, spanning function-level, data-science, and workflow code. Across 71,000 generated candidates, 43,677 pass public tests and 23,081 of those fail hidden tests. Weak verifiers improve with scaffolding and model family, but still miss most hidden bugs at 5% false-positive rate. As a robustness stress test, adversarial public-test-overfit pressure lowers verifier AUROC and raises low-FPR miss rates in most cells. A GLM-5.1 verifier recovers part of the gap under the same evidence boundary; an inferability audit shows that remaining misses mix verifier failures with M1 evidence limits.
Jun-Hui Liao, Jiawen Deng, Fuji Ren et al.· 0 citations
A target-specific authorization audit is introduced that labels context factors separately for each tool and argument target and holds the task, proposition, position, and policy fixed while changing only the proposition's source authority.