Alignment is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity. As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains like education, healthcare, governance, and law, their behavior must reliably reflect human-aligned values and safety constraints. Yet current evaluations rely heavily on behavioral proxies such as refusal rates, G-Eval scores, and toxicity classifiers, all of which have critical blind spots. Aligned models are often vulnerable to jailbreaking, stochasticity of generation, and alignment faking. To address this issue, we introduce the **Alignment Quality Index (AQI)**. This novel geometric and prompt-invariant metric empirically assesses LLM alignment by analyzing the separation of safe and unsafe activations in latent space. By combining measures such as the *Davies-Bouldin score (DBS)*, *Dunn index (DI)*, *Xie-Beni index (XBI)*, and *Calinski-Harabasz index (CHI)* across various formulations, AQI captures clustering quality to detect hidden misalignments and jailbreak risks, even when outputs appear compliant. AQI also serves as an early warning signal for alignment faking, offering a robust, decoding-invariant tool for behavior-agnostic safety auditing. Additionally, we propose the **LITMUS** dataset to facilitate robust evaluation under these challenging conditions. Empirical tests on LITMUS across different models trained under DPO, GRPO, and RLHF conditions demonstrate AQI’s correlation with external judges and ability to reveal vulnerabilities missed by refusal metrics. We make our implementation publicly available to foster future research in this area.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit gender bias, resulting in unequal treatment of male and female subjects across different contexts. To address this issue, we propose a novel data generation framework that fosters exploratory thinking in LLMs. Our approach prompts models to generate story pairs featuring male and female protagonists in structurally identical, morally ambiguous scenarios, then elicits and compares their moral judgments. When inconsistencies arise, the model is guided to produce balanced, gender-neutral judgments. These story-judgment pairs are used to fine-tune or optimize the models via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Experimental results show that our method significantly reduces gender bias while preserving or even enhancing general model capabilities. We will release the code and generated data.

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised questions about their ability to understand climate-related contexts. Though climate change dominates social media, analyzing its multimodal expressions is understudied, and current tools have failed to determine whether LLMs amplify credible solutions or spread unsubstantiated claims. To address this, we introduce CliME (Climate Change Multimodal Evaluation), a first-of-its-kind multimodal dataset, comprising 2579 Twitter and Reddit posts. The benchmark features a diverse collection of humorous memes and skeptical posts, capturing how these formats distill complex issues into viral narratives that shape public opinion and policy discussions. To systematically evaluate LLM performance, we present the Climate Alignment Quotient (CAQ), a novel metric comprising five distinct dimensions: Articulation, Evidence, Resonance, Transition, and Specificity. Additionally, we propose three analytical lenses: Actionability, Criticality, and Justice, to guide the assessment of LLM-generated climate discourse using CAQ. Our findings, based on the CAQ metric, indicate that while most evaluated LLMs perform relatively well in Criticality and Justice, they consistently underperform on the Actionability axis. Among the models evaluated, Claude 3.7 Sonnet achieves the highest overall performance. We publicly release our code and dataset to foster further research in this domain.