Published December 27, 2025 | Version v1
Preprint Open

Representational Invariance and the Observer Problem in Language Model Alignment

Authors/Creators

Description

Temporal coherence—the ability of a system to maintain consistency across time evolution—is a necessary but insufficient condition for alignment in large language models. We introduce representational coherence (ΔR) as an orthogonal axis measuring commitment preservation under representational transformation. Through analysis of a technical specification transformed via compression, translation, and formalization, we demonstrate systematic commitment shear: the selective loss of enforcement constraints, edge cases, and observability hooks even when temporal coherence is preserved. Compression induces 55% shear; formalization induces 45% shear through ontology forcing; translation preserves commitments with near-zero shear. We formalize commitment transport as an invariant-preservation problem and argue that alignment without observer-level binding of equivalence classes across representations is fundamentally incomplete. Our cache policy artifact and shear metrics provide a foundation for instrumenting representational coherence in language model evaluation.

Files

delta_r_paper.pdf

Files (278.8 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:2ae7506e58c9b64e688695f6cd7ebc67
278.8 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Hilary Putnam. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
  • Donald Davidson. On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47:5–20, 1974. 11 [3] Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Lan- guage Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022.
  • Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903, 2022.
  • Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, et al. Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022.
  • Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, et al. Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017.
  • Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, et al. Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022.
  • Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's Verify Step by Step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023.
  • Samuel R. Bowman, Jeeyoon Hyun, Ethan Perez, et al. Measuring Progress on Scalable Over- sight for Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03540, 2022.
  • Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding Through Inference. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of NAACL: Human Language Technologies, pages 1112–1122, 2018.
  • Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings Using Siamese BERT-Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019. A Experimental Artifacts A.1 Original Specification (r1 ) Cache Invalidation Policy Specification v1.0 Purpose: Define when cached API responses must be invalidated. Core Rules: 1. All cached responses MUST include a cache-control header with max-age. 2. Responses with max-age=0 MUST NOT be cached under any circumstances. 3. Responses without cache-control headers SHOULD be treated as max-age=300 (5 minutes) by default. 4. If upstream service returns 5xx error, stale cache MAY be served for up to 2x original max-age. 5. Authentication tokens embedded in cached responses MUST be stripped before caching. 6. For user-specific queries, cache key MUST include user_id hash to prevent data leakage. 12 Boundary Conditions: 7. Cache size limit: when exceeded, LEAST recently used entries are evicted (not oldest). 8. Multi-region: cache invalidation MUST propagate to all regions within 60 seconds. 9. Zero-byte responses are valid and MUST be cached like any other response. 10. If cache-control has both max-age and s-maxage, s-maxage takes precedence for shared caches. Edge Cases: 11. Concurrent invalidation requests: last-write-wins, no locking. 12. During cache warmup: if origin is unreachable, empty cache is acceptable; do NOT serve stale data older than 24 hours. 13. HEAD requests: cached separately from GET requests even if URL identical. Dependencies: 14. If rate limiting is active AND cache is cold, THEN requests must queue rather than bypass cache. 15. Cache hit ratio below 60% over 5-minute window triggers alert but does NOT disable caching. Exclusions: 16. WebSocket upgrade requests are NEVER cached. 17. Requests with Cookie headers are cached ONLY if explicitly whitelisted. 18. POST/PUT/DELETE methods are NEVER cached, even if response includes cache-control. Monitoring: 19. Every cache decision (hit/miss/stale/bypass) MUST be logged with timestamp and cache key. 20. Cache invalidation events MUST include reason code (expiry/eviction/manual/upstream-signal). A.2 Transform Prompts Compression transform: Summarize this cache invalidation policy as 3-5 core principles: [specification text] Translation transform: Translate this cache invalidation policy specification to French, preserving all technical precision and detail: 13 [specification text] Formalization transform: Convert this cache invalidation policy into pseudo-formal rules using schema notation (like BNF or logical predicates): [specification text] A.3 Extraction Protocol Pass 1: Commitment extraction Extract all commitments from this specification as a structured list. For each commitment, identify: - Atomic claim (subject-verb-object) - Quantifier (ALL/SOME/NONE/EXISTS) - Modality (MUST/SHOULD/MAY/MUST_NOT) - Type (RULE/BOUNDARY/DEPENDENCY/EXCLUSION) - Any conditions or dependencies [representation text] Output as structured list. Pass 2: Transport classification Given these commitments extracted from the original specification (K$_1$), classify each commitment's status in the transformed version (R$_2$). For each commitment, classify as: - PRESERVED: commitment exists with equivalent force in R$_2$ (provide quote span as evidence) - WEAKENED: commitment exists but with reduced modality or scope (provide quote span + explanation) - DROPPED: commitment does not appear in R$_2$ at all - CONTRADICTED: R$_2$ contradicts this commitment (provide quote span + explanation) K$_1$ = [commitment list] R$_2$ = [transformed representation] Output structured classification with evidence spans. B Variance Analysis B.1 Multiple Run Results We conducted three independent runs of each transform type using identical experimental condi- tions (same model, temperature, fresh contexts). Results demonstrate that the core patterns are robust across runs while revealing meaningful variance in specific failure modes. 14 Transform Shear Fault Injection Compression Trial 1 55% 0% 0% Trial 2 50% 0% 0% Trial 3 60% 0% 5% Mean ± SD 55.0% ± 5.0% 0.0% ± 0.0% 1.7% ± 2.9% Translation Trial 1 0% 0% 0% Trial 2 0% 0% 0% Trial 3 5% 0% 0% Mean ± SD 1.7% ± 2.9% 0.0% ± 0.0% 0.0% ± 0.0% Formalization Trial 1 45% 5% 15% Trial 2 50% 5% 10% Trial 3 40% 10% 20% Mean ± SD 45.0% ± 5.0% 6.7% ±2.9% 15.0% ± 5.0% Table 2: Commitment transport metrics across three independent runs per transform type. All percentages represent fraction of total commitments (n=20). B.2 Statistical Interpretation Compression (Shear: 55.0% ± 5.0%): Moderate variance reflects stochastic variation in which specific edge cases and observability requirements are preserved vs. dropped. The core pattern— systematic loss of operational details while preserving high-level intent—remains stable across runs. Zero contradiction rate (Fault = 0%) demonstrates that compression maintains internal consistency even while dropping constraints. Translation (Shear: 1.7% ± 2.9%): Near-zero shear with minimal variance confirms that linguistic transformation preserves commitment structure with high fidelity. The slight variance in Trial 3 (5% shear) represents minor semantic drift in technical terminology translation, but overall transport is remarkably robust. Formalization (Shear: 45.0% ± 5.0%, Injection: 15.0% ± 5.0%): Moderate variance in both shear and injection reflects the stochastic nature of ontology forcing. Different runs make different discretization choices when mapping prose to formal schema, leading to variation in which commitments are preserved, dropped, or spuriously added. Injection variance (σ = 5.0%) is notably higher than other metrics, indicating that formalization's tendency to hallucinate constraints is sensitive to generation randomness. B.3 Commitment Type Analysis Analysis of which commitments were lost across runs reveals systematic patterns: Observability requirements (Rules 19-20): Dropped in 100% of compression runs, 0% of translation runs, 67% of formalization runs. These "meta-requirements" about logging and monitoring are consistently deprioritized during compression. Edge cases (Rules 11-13): Dropped in 100% of compression runs, preserved in all translation runs. Formalization preserved them structurally but often with altered semantics. Negative constraints (Rules 16-18): Retained in 90% of all runs across transforms, suggest- ing "NEVER" modality is linguistically salient and survives transformation better than conditional 15 or boundary constraints. Core operational rules (Rules 1-6): Preserved in ¿85% of runs across all transforms, indi- cating that high-level functional requirements are robust to representation change. This pattern analysis supports the claim that commitment shear is not random noise but reflects systematic prioritization: models preserve core functionality while deprioritizing operational details, monitoring, and edge case handling.