How Well Do Models Follow Their Constitutions?
The paper examines how well AI models adhere to their specified behavioral guidelines. It introduces a multi-method audit pipeline to evaluate compliance under real-world conditions. Findings indicate that newer model generations show significant improvements in following their respective specifications.
- ▪The study analyzes models from Anthropic and OpenAI against their published specifications.
- ▪Models demonstrated a decrease in violation rates, with Claude models dropping from 15.0% to 2.0% and GPT models from 11.7% to 3.6%.
- ▪The research highlights remaining issues related to AI identity questioning and the generation of misleading quantitative claims.
arXiv cs.AI files mainly under ai research. We currently carry 1,128 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | arXiv cs.AI |
| Canonical URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24229 |
| Publication time | Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 -0400 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-26T04:07:43.013Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-26T04:07:43.013Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | Hf_d6H50tAbu |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2605.24229 (cs) [Submitted on 22 May 2026] Title:How Well Do Models Follow Their Constitutions? Authors:Arya Jakkli, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Neel Nanda View a PDF of the paper titled How Well Do Models Follow Their Constitutions?, by Arya Jakkli and 2 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Frontier AI developers now train models against long written behavioral specifications, such as Anthropic's constitution (Anthropic, 2025a) and OpenAI's Model Spec (OpenAI, 2025a), integrated into post-training via methods like character training (Anthropic, 2024) and deliberative alignment (Guan et al., 2024).
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv cs.AI.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv cs.AI
