Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Model Equality Testing: Which Model Is This API Serving?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.20247 v2 pith:GCYLMTTF submitted 2024-10-26 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords modelmodelsdistributionstesttestingapisdistortionsdistribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Users often interact with large language models through black-box inference APIs, both for closed- and open-weight models (e.g., Llama models are popularly accessed via Amazon Bedrock and Azure AI Studio). In order to cut costs or add functionality, API providers may quantize, watermark, or finetune the underlying model, changing the output distribution -- possibly without notifying users. We formalize detecting such distortions as Model Equality Testing, a two-sample testing problem, where the user collects samples from the API and a reference distribution and conducts a statistical test to see if the two distributions are the same. We find that tests based on the Maximum Mean Discrepancy between distributions are powerful for this task: a test built on a simple string kernel achieves a median of 77.4% power against a range of distortions, using an average of just 10 samples per prompt. We then apply this test to commercial inference APIs from Summer 2024 for four Llama models, finding that 11 out of 31 endpoints serve different distributions than reference weights released by Meta.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. KBF: Knowledge Boundary as Fingerprint for Language Model and Black-Box API Auditing

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    KBF uses stable numerical recall near the knowledge boundary to fingerprint and audit black-box LLM APIs, successfully detecting all tested substitutions and some real-world inconsistencies across production endpoints.

  2. Rewriting the Response Path: Silent Tampering and Provider-Signed Defense in BYOK LLM Agents

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A malicious relay can strategically rewrite aligned LLM outputs in BYOK agent architectures to achieve up to 99.1% attack success on benchmarks like AgentDojo and ASB.

  3. Kernel Quantile Embeddings and Associated Probability Metrics

    stat.ML 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Kernel quantile embeddings produce a new family of distribution distances that are probability metrics under separating kernels and can be estimated in O(n log^2 n) time.

Pith tools