Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in various applications, but the reliability of the outcomes remains a challenge. One such challenge is using LLMs-as-judges for direct assessment, i.e., assigning scores from a specified range without any references. We first show that this challenge stems from LLM judge outputs being associated with score range bias, i.e., LLM judge outputs are highly sensitive to pre-defined score ranges, preventing the search for optimal score ranges. We also show that similar biases exist among models from the same family. We then mitigate this bias through contrastive decoding, achieving up to 11.3% relative improvement on average in Spearman correlation with human judgments across different score ranges.

Multimodal large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as automated evaluators in clinical settings, yet their scoring behavior on ordinal clinical scales remains poorly understood. We benchmark three frontier LLM families against supervised deep learning models for scoring Clock Drawing Test (CDT) images on two public datasets using the Shulman rubric. While fully fine-tuned Vision Transformers achieve the best calibration (MAE 0.52, within-1 accuracy 91%), zero-shot LLMs remain competitive on tolerance-based agreement (GPT-5 MAE 0.67, within-1 accuracy 92%) despite higher absolute error. However, per-score analysis reveals that all three LLM families exhibit a pronounced central tendency effect (systematic endpoint compression): predictions are systematically compressed toward the middle of the scale, with over-prediction at the low end (score 0 to 1) and under-prediction at the high end (score 5 to 4). This effect disproportionately affects the clinically critical extremes where accurate scoring most impacts screening decisions for cognitive impairment. Targeted ablations show that neither few-shot exemplars spanning the full score range nor removing clinical terminology from the prompt eliminates the effect. Our findings extend the LLM-as-a-judge bias literature from NLP evaluation to clinical assessment, and highlight the need for calibration-aware evaluation and post-hoc calibration before deploying LLM-based raters in high-stakes screening workflows.

We present MahaSTS, a human-annotated Sentence Textual Similarity (STS) dataset for Marathi, along with MahaSBERT-STS-v2, a fine-tuned Sentence-BERT model optimized for regression-based similarity scoring. The MahaSTS dataset consists of 16,860 Marathi sentence pairs labeled with continuous similarity scores in the range of 0-5. To ensure balanced supervision, the dataset is uniformly distributed across six score-based buckets spanning the full 0-5 range, thus reducing label bias and enhancing model stability. We fine-tune the MahaSBERT model on this dataset and benchmark its performance against other alternatives like MahaBERT, MuRIL, IndicBERT, and IndicSBERT. Our experiments demonstrate that MahaSTS enables effective training for sentence similarity tasks in Marathi, highlighting the impact of human-curated annotations, targeted fine-tuning, and structured supervision in low-resource settings. The dataset and model are publicly shared at https://github.com/l3cube-pune/MarathiNLP

Unintended bias in Machine Learning can manifest as systemic differences in performance for different demographic groups, potentially compounding existing challenges to fairness in society at large. In this paper, we introduce a suite of threshold-agnostic metrics that provide a nuanced view of this unintended bias, by considering the various ways that a classifier's score distribution can vary across designated groups. We also introduce a large new test set of online comments with crowd-sourced annotations for identity references. We use this to show how our metrics can be used to find new and potentially subtle unintended bias in existing public models.

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit strong biases, e.g, against women or in favor of the number 7. We investigate whether LLMs would be able to output less biased answers when allowed to observe their prior answers to the same question in a multi-turn conversation. To understand which types of questions invite more biased answers, we test LLMs on our proposed set of questions that span 9 topics and belong to three types: (1) Subjective; (2) Random; and (3) Objective. Interestingly, LLMs are able to "de-bias" themselves in a multi-turn conversation in response to questions that seek an Random, unbiased answer. Furthermore, we propose B-score, a novel metric that is effective in detecting biases to Subjective, Random, Easy, and Hard questions. On MMLU, HLE, and CSQA, leveraging B-score substantially improves the verification accuracy of LLM answers (i.e, accepting LLM correct answers and rejecting incorrect ones) compared to using verbalized confidence scores or the frequency of single-turn answers alone. Code and data are available at: https://b-score.github.io.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases - particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt - compromise its reliability. This exploratory study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings, introducing three metrics: repetition stability, position consistency, and preference fairness. Our experiments, involving 15 LLM judges across MTBench and DevBench with 22 tasks and approximately 40 solution-generating models, result in over 150,000 evaluation instances. We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias. The findings confirm that position bias is not due to random chance and varies significantly across judges and tasks. While position bias is weakly influenced by the length of prompt components, it is strongly affected by the quality gap between solutions. Our agreement and disagreement analysis among judges further provides insights into the distribution of judging difficulty across the dataset, and highlights the potential for dataset modifications.

Relevance and fairness are two major objectives of recommender systems (RSs). Recent work proposes measures of RS fairness that are either independent from relevance (fairness-only) or conditioned on relevance (joint measures). While fairness-only measures have been studied extensively, we look into whether joint measures can be trusted. We collect all joint evaluation measures of RS relevance and fairness, and ask: How much do they agree with each other? To what extent do they agree with relevance/fairness measures? How sensitive are they to changes in rank position, or to increasingly fair and relevant recommendations? We empirically study for the first time the behaviour of these measures across 4 real-world datasets and 4 recommenders. We find that most of these measures: i) correlate weakly with one another and even contradict each other at times; ii) are less sensitive to rank position changes than relevance- and fairness-only measures, meaning that they are less granular than traditional RS measures; and iii) tend to compress scores at the low end of their range, meaning that they are not very expressive. We counter the above limitations with a set of guidelines on the appropriate usage of such measures, i.e., they should be used with caution due to their tendency to contradict each other and of having a very small empirical range.

We consider a binary classification problem under group fairness constraints, which can be one of Demographic Parity (DP), Equalized Opportunity (EOp), or Equalized Odds (EO). We propose an explicit characterization of Bayes optimal classifier under the fairness constraints, which turns out to be a simple modification rule of the unconstrained classifier. Namely, we introduce a novel instance-level measure of bias, which we call bias score, and the modification rule is a simple linear rule on top of the finite amount of bias scores.Based on this characterization, we develop a post-hoc approach that allows us to adapt to fairness constraints while maintaining high accuracy. In the case of DP and EOp constraints, the modification rule is thresholding a single bias score, while in the case of EO constraints we are required to fit a linear modification rule with 2 parameters. The method can also be applied for composite group-fairness criteria, such as ones involving several sensitive attributes.

In machine learning (ML), a widespread adage is that the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) is a superior metric for model comparison to the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for binary classification tasks with class imbalance. This paper challenges this notion through novel mathematical analysis, illustrating that AUROC and AUPRC can be concisely related in probabilistic terms. We demonstrate that AUPRC, contrary to popular belief, is not superior in cases of class imbalance and might even be a harmful metric, given its inclination to unduly favor model improvements in subpopulations with more frequent positive labels. This bias can inadvertently heighten algorithmic disparities. Prompted by these insights, a thorough review of existing ML literature was conducted, utilizing large language models to analyze over 1.5 million papers from arXiv. Our investigation focused on the prevalence and substantiation of the purported AUPRC superiority. The results expose a significant deficit in empirical backing and a trend of misattributions that have fuelled the widespread acceptance of AUPRC's supposed advantages. Our findings represent a dual contribution: a significant technical advancement in understanding metric behaviors and a stark warning about unchecked assumptions in the ML community. All experiments are accessible at https://github.com/mmcdermott/AUC_is_all_you_need.

In arena-style evaluation of large language models (LLMs), two LLMs respond to a user query, and the user chooses the winning response or deems the "battle" a draw, resulting in an adjustment to the ratings of both models. The prevailing approach for modeling these rating dynamics is to view battles as two-player game matches, as in chess, and apply the Elo rating system and its derivatives. In this paper, we critically examine this paradigm. Specifically, we question whether a draw genuinely means that the two models are equal and hence whether their ratings should be equalized. Instead, we conjecture that draws are more indicative of query difficulty: if the query is too easy, then both models are more likely to succeed equally. On three real-world arena datasets, we show that ignoring rating updates for draws yields a 1-3% relative increase in battle outcome prediction accuracy (which includes draws) for all four rating systems studied. Further analyses suggest that draws occur more for queries rated as very easy and those as highly objective, with risk ratios of 1.37 and 1.35, respectively. We recommend future rating systems to reconsider existing draw semantics and to account for query properties in rating updates.

Binary classification involves predicting the label of an instance based on whether the model score for the positive class exceeds a threshold chosen based on the application requirements (e.g., maximizing recall for a precision bound). However, model scores are often not aligned with the true positivity rate. This is especially true when the training involves a differential sampling across classes or there is distributional drift between train and test settings. In this paper, we provide theoretical analysis and empirical evidence of the dependence of model score estimation bias on both uncertainty and score itself. Further, we formulate the decision boundary selection in terms of both model score and uncertainty, prove that it is NP-hard, and present algorithms based on dynamic programming and isotonic regression. Evaluation of the proposed algorithms on three real-world datasets yield 25%-40% gain in recall at high precision bounds over the traditional approach of using model score alone, highlighting the benefits of leveraging uncertainty.

Modern LLM agents combine long-term memory for personalization with tool-calling interfaces for taking actions in the world -- a combination underpinning contemporary production systems. We study a previously unexamined failure of this combination: when personality-driven biases stored in memory (cost-consciousness, impatience, risk tolerance, etc.) silently affect tool calls in contexts where they are not applicable. We call this memory-induced tool-drift and operationalize it through MEMDRIFT, a benchmark of 105 scenarios spanning five bias dimensions and seven professional domains, generated through an automated adversarial pipeline. Across seven frontier models -- including those with extended reasoning -- biased memories raise deflection scores (a judge-scored measure of parameter deviation from unbiased baselines) by up to +3.6 points on a 1--5 scale. Tool-drift persists when memory management is handled by three production memory architectures. The phenomenon affects real-world tools: scanning 6{,}062 tools across 288 verified MCP servers, we flag 608 with susceptible parameters and confirm tool-drift on a validated subset. Mechanistically, biased memories act as implicit steering vectors, pushing activations along the same latent directions as explicit behavioral instructions. They also redistribute attention from task-relevant context toward memory entries with surface-level keyword overlap to the target parameter. Standard defenses -- prompt-based relevance instructions and memory filters -- reduce drift but do not eliminate it. As agents take increasingly consequential actions on a user's behalf, memory-induced tool-drift represents a systematic vulnerability that current safeguards do not address, motivating dedicated defenses at the intersection of memory management and tool-call generation.

This paper shows that two commonly used evaluation metrics for generative models, the Fr\'echet Inception Distance (FID) and the Inception Score (IS), are biased -- the expected value of the score computed for a finite sample set is not the true value of the score. Worse, the paper shows that the bias term depends on the particular model being evaluated, so model A may get a better score than model B simply because model A's bias term is smaller. This effect cannot be fixed by evaluating at a fixed number of samples. This means all comparisons using FID or IS as currently computed are unreliable. We then show how to extrapolate the score to obtain an effectively bias-free estimate of scores computed with an infinite number of samples, which we term textrm{FID}_infty and textrm{IS}_infty. In turn, this effectively bias-free estimate requires good estimates of scores with a finite number of samples. We show that using Quasi-Monte Carlo integration notably improves estimates of FID and IS for finite sample sets. Our extrapolated scores are simple, drop-in replacements for the finite sample scores. Additionally, we show that using low discrepancy sequence in GAN training offers small improvements in the resulting generator.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

LLMs can exhibit age biases, resulting in unequal treatment of individuals across age groups. While much research has addressed racial and gender biases, age bias remains little explored. The scarcity of instruction-tuning and preference datasets for age bias hampers its detection and measurement, and existing fine-tuning methods seldom address age-related fairness. In this paper, we construct age bias preference datasets and instruction-tuning datasets for RLHF. We introduce ARG, an age fairness reward to reduce differences in the response quality of LLMs across different age groups. Extensive experiments demonstrate that this reward significantly improves response accuracy and reduces performance disparities across age groups. Our source code and datasets are available at the anonymous https://anonymous.4open.science/r/FairRLHF-D445/readme.md{link}.

Now that AI-driven moderation has become pervasive in everyday life, we often hear claims that "the AI is biased". While this is often said jokingly, the light-hearted remark reflects a deeper concern. How can we be certain that an online post flagged as "inappropriate" was not simply the victim of a biased algorithm? This paper investigates this problem using a dual approach. First, I conduct a quantitative benchmark of a widely used toxicity model (unitary/toxic-bert) to measure performance disparity between text in African-American English (AAE) and Standard American English (SAE). The benchmark reveals a clear, systematic bias: on average, the model scores AAE text as 1.8 times more toxic and 8.8 times higher for "identity hate". Second, I introduce an interactive pedagogical tool that makes these abstract biases tangible. The tool's core mechanic, a user-controlled "sensitivity threshold," demonstrates that the biased score itself is not the only harm; instead, the more-concerning harm is the human-set, seemingly neutral policy that ultimately operationalises discrimination. This work provides both statistical evidence of disparate impact and a public-facing tool designed to foster critical AI literacy.

Commonly used evaluation measures including Recall, Precision, F-Measure and Rand Accuracy are biased and should not be used without clear understanding of the biases, and corresponding identification of chance or base case levels of the statistic. Using these measures a system that performs worse in the objective sense of Informedness, can appear to perform better under any of these commonly used measures. We discuss several concepts and measures that reflect the probability that prediction is informed versus chance. Informedness and introduce Markedness as a dual measure for the probability that prediction is marked versus chance. Finally we demonstrate elegant connections between the concepts of Informedness, Markedness, Correlation and Significance as well as their intuitive relationships with Recall and Precision, and outline the extension from the dichotomous case to the general multi-class case.

We consider the problem of subset selection where one is given multiple rankings of items and the goal is to select the highest ``quality'' subset. Score functions from the multiwinner voting literature have been used to aggregate rankings into quality scores for subsets. We study this setting of subset selection problems when, in addition, rankings may contain systemic or unconscious biases toward a group of items. For a general model of input rankings and biases, we show that requiring the selected subset to satisfy group fairness constraints can improve the quality of the selection with respect to unbiased rankings. Importantly, we show that for fairness constraints to be effective, different multiwinner score functions may require a drastically different number of rankings: While for some functions, fairness constraints need an exponential number of rankings to recover a close-to-optimal solution, for others, this dependency is only polynomial. This result relies on a novel notion of ``smoothness'' of submodular functions in this setting that quantifies how well a function can ``correctly'' assess the quality of items in the presence of bias. The results in this paper can be used to guide the choice of multiwinner score functions for the subset selection setting considered here; we additionally provide a tool to empirically enable this.

The evaluation of recommender system fairness has become increasingly important, especially with recent legislation that emphasises the development of fair and responsible artificial intelligence. This has led to the emergence of various fairness evaluation measures, which quantify fairness based on different definitions. However, many of such measures are simply proposed and used without further analysis on their robustness. As a result, there is insufficient understanding and awareness of the measures' limitations. Among other issues, it is not known what kind of model outputs produce the (un)fairest score, how the measure scores are empirically distributed, and whether there are cases where the measures cannot be computed (e.g., due to division by zero). These issues cause difficulty in interpreting the measure scores and confusion on which measure(s) should be used for a specific case. This thesis presents a series of papers that assess and overcome various theoretical, empirical, and conceptual limitations of existing recommender system fairness evaluation measures. We investigate a wide range of offline evaluation measures for different fairness notions, divided based on the evaluation subjects (users and items) and for different evaluation granularities (groups of subjects and individual subjects). Firstly, we perform theoretical and empirical analysis on the measures, exposing flaws that limit their interpretability, expressiveness, or applicability. Secondly, we contribute novel evaluation approaches and measures that overcome these limitations. Finally, considering the measures' limitations, we recommend guidelines for the appropriate measure usage, thereby allowing for more precise selection of fairness evaluation measures in practical scenarios. Overall, this thesis contributes to advancing the state-of-the-art offline evaluation of fairness in recommender systems.

Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit self-preference bias when serving as judges, meaning they tend to favor their own responses over those generated by other models. Existing methods typically measure this bias by calculating the difference between the scores a judge model assigns to its own responses and those it assigns to responses from other models. However, this approach conflates self-preference bias with response quality, as higher-quality responses from the judge model may also lead to positive score differences, even in the absence of bias. To address this issue, we introduce gold judgments as proxies for the actual quality of responses and propose the DBG score, which measures self-preference bias as the difference between the scores assigned by the judge model to its own responses and the corresponding gold judgments. Since gold judgments reflect true response quality, the DBG score mitigates the confounding effect of response quality on bias measurement. Using the DBG score, we conduct comprehensive experiments to assess self-preference bias across LLMs of varying versions, sizes, and reasoning abilities. Additionally, we investigate two factors that influence and help alleviate self-preference bias: response text style and the post-training data of judge models. Finally, we explore potential underlying mechanisms of self-preference bias from an attention-based perspective. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/zhiyuanc2001/self-preference.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

In most machine learning tasks, we evaluate a model M on a given data population S by measuring a population-level metric F(S;M). Examples of such evaluation metric F include precision/recall for (binary) recognition, the F1 score for multi-class classification, and the BLEU metric for language generation. On the other hand, the model M is trained by optimizing a sample-level loss G(S_t;M) at each learning step t, where S_t is a subset of S (a.k.a. the mini-batch). Popular choices of G include cross-entropy loss, the Dice loss, and sentence-level BLEU scores. A fundamental assumption behind this paradigm is that the mean value of the sample-level loss G, if averaged over all possible samples, should effectively represent the population-level metric F of the task, such as, that E[ G(S_t;M) ] approx F(S;M). In this paper, we systematically investigate the above assumption in several NLP tasks. We show, both theoretically and experimentally, that some popular designs of the sample-level loss G may be inconsistent with the true population-level metric F of the task, so that models trained to optimize the former can be substantially sub-optimal to the latter, a phenomenon we call it, Simpson's bias, due to its deep connections with the classic paradox known as Simpson's reversal paradox in statistics and social sciences.

Reward models (RMs) play a crucial role in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback by serving as proxies for human preferences in aligning large language models. In this paper, we identify a model preference bias in RMs, where they systematically assign disproportionately high scores to responses from certain policy models. This bias distorts ranking evaluations and leads to unfair judgments. To address this issue, we propose a calibration method named CHatbot Arena calibrated Reward Modeling (CHARM) that leverages Elo scores from the Chatbot Arena leaderboard to mitigate RM overvaluation. We also introduce a Mismatch Degree metric to measure this preference bias. Our approach is computationally efficient, requiring only a small preference dataset for continued training of the RM. We conduct extensive experiments on reward model benchmarks and human preference alignment. Results demonstrate that our calibrated RMs (1) achieve improved evaluation accuracy on RM-Bench and the Chat-Hard domain of RewardBench, and (2) exhibit a stronger correlation with human preferences by producing scores more closely aligned with Elo rankings. By mitigating model preference bias, our method provides a generalizable and efficient solution for building fairer and more reliable reward models.

Eliminating examination bias accurately is pivotal to apply click-through data to train an unbiased ranking model. However, most examination-bias estimators are limited to the hypothesis of Position-Based Model (PBM), which supposes that the calculation of examination bias only depends on the rank of the document. Recently, although some works introduce information such as clicks in the same query list and contextual information when calculating the examination bias, they still do not model the impact of document representation on search engine result pages (SERPs) that seriously affects one's perception of document relevance to a query when examining. Therefore, we propose a Multi-Feature Integration Model (MFIM) where the examination bias depends on the representation of document except the rank of it. Furthermore, we mine a key factor slipoff counts that can indirectly reflects the influence of all perception-bias factors. Real world experiments on Baidu-ULTR dataset demonstrate the superior effectiveness and robustness of the new approach. The source code is available at https://github.com/lixsh6/Tencent_wsdm_cup2023/tree/main/pytorch_unbias{https://github.com/lixsh6/Tencent\_wsdm\_cup2023}

Fairness is an emerging and challenging topic in recommender systems. In recent years, various ways of evaluating and therefore improving fairness have emerged. In this study, we examine existing evaluation measures of fairness in recommender systems. Specifically, we focus solely on exposure-based fairness measures of individual items that aim to quantify the disparity in how individual items are recommended to users, separate from item relevance to users. We gather all such measures and we critically analyse their theoretical properties. We identify a series of limitations in each of them, which collectively may render the affected measures hard or impossible to interpret, to compute, or to use for comparing recommendations. We resolve these limitations by redefining or correcting the affected measures, or we argue why certain limitations cannot be resolved. We further perform a comprehensive empirical analysis of both the original and our corrected versions of these fairness measures, using real-world and synthetic datasets. Our analysis provides novel insights into the relationship between measures based on different fairness concepts, and different levels of measure sensitivity and strictness. We conclude with practical suggestions of which fairness measures should be used and when. Our code is publicly available. To our knowledge, this is the first critical comparison of individual item fairness measures in recommender systems.

Many existing conditional score-based data generation methods utilize Bayes' theorem to decompose the gradients of a log posterior density into a mixture of scores. These methods facilitate the training procedure of conditional score models, as a mixture of scores can be separately estimated using a score model and a classifier. However, our analysis indicates that the training objectives for the classifier in these methods may lead to a serious score mismatch issue, which corresponds to the situation that the estimated scores deviate from the true ones. Such an issue causes the samples to be misled by the deviated scores during the diffusion process, resulting in a degraded sampling quality. To resolve it, we formulate a novel training objective, called Denoising Likelihood Score Matching (DLSM) loss, for the classifier to match the gradients of the true log likelihood density. Our experimental evidence shows that the proposed method outperforms the previous methods on both Cifar-10 and Cifar-100 benchmarks noticeably in terms of several key evaluation metrics. We thus conclude that, by adopting DLSM, the conditional scores can be accurately modeled, and the effect of the score mismatch issue is alleviated.

Evaluation has traditionally focused on ranking candidates for a specific skill. Modern generalist models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), decidedly outpace this paradigm. Open-ended evaluation systems, where candidate models are compared on user-submitted prompts, have emerged as a popular solution. Despite their many advantages, we show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental, due to their sensitivity to redundancies. To address this issue, we propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy. We show that our method leads to intuitive ratings and provide insights into the competitive landscape of LLM development.

Distinct-n scoreLi2016 is a widely used automatic metric for evaluating diversity in language generation tasks. However, we observed that the original approach for calculating distinct scores has evident biases that tend to assign higher penalties to longer sequences. We refine the calculation of distinct scores by scaling the number of distinct tokens based on their expectations. We provide both empirical and theoretical evidence to show that our method effectively removes the biases existing in the original distinct score. Our experiments show that our proposed metric, Expectation-Adjusted Distinct (EAD), correlates better with human judgment in evaluating response diversity. To foster future research, we provide an example implementation at https://github.com/lsy641/Expectation-Adjusted-Distinct.

Counterfactual prompting (i.e., perturbing a single factor and measuring output change) is widely used to evaluate things like LLM bias and CoT faithfulness. But in this work we argue that observed effects cannot be attributed to the targeted factor without accounting for baseline ``meaning-preserving'' modifications to text that establish general model sensitivity. This is because every counterfactual edit is a compound treatment that bundles the variable of interest with incidental surface-form variation; this violates treatment variation irrelevance. We observe prediction flip rates on MedQA of 14.9% when we surgically change patient gender. However, this is statistically indistinguishable from the flip rates induced by simply paraphrasing inputs (14.1%). In this case, it would therefore be unwarranted to conclude that the LLM is especially sensitive to patient gender. To account for this and robustly measure the effects of targeted interventions, we propose a framework in which we compare (via statistical testing) differences observed under target interventions to those induced by paraphrasing inputs. We then use this framework to revisit a analysis done on the MedPerturb dataset, which reported evidence of model sensitivity to patient demographics and stylistic cues. We find that these effects largely dissipate when we account for general model sensitivity, with only 5 of 120 tests reaching statistical significance. Applying the same framework to occupational biography classification, we detect clearly significant directional gender bias, showing that the framework identifies real directional effects even when they are small. We evaluate a range of metrics -- aggregate, per-sample distributional, and regression -- and find that per-sample metrics are dramatically more powerful than aggregate metrics and regression powerfully and uniquely characterizes effect direction and magnitude.

Majority voting over multiple LLM attempts improves mathematical reasoning, but correlated errors limit the effective sample size. A natural fix is to assign different reasoning strategies to different voters. The approach, Diverse Prompt Mixer, is tested on the AIMO 3 competition: 3 models, 23+ experiments, 50 IMO-level problems, one H100 80 GB, 5-hour limit. Every prompt-level intervention fails. High-temperature sampling already decorrelates errors; weaker strategies reduce accuracy more than they reduce correlation. Across an 8-point capability gap at equal N=8 and every optimization tested, model capability dominates. The gap between the best majority-vote score (42/50) and pass@20 (~45.5) is selection loss, not prompt loss. A verifier-based selector could close it. Prompt engineering cannot.

A binary decision task, like yes-no questions or answer verification, reflects a significant real-world scenario such as where users look for confirmation about the correctness of their decisions on specific issues. In this work, we observe that language models exhibit a negative bias in the binary decisions of complex reasoning tasks. Based on our observations and the rationale about attention-based model dynamics, we propose a negative attention score (NAS) to systematically and quantitatively formulate negative bias. Based on NAS, we identify attention heads that attend to negative tokens provided in the instructions as answer candidate of binary decisions, regardless of the question in the prompt, and validate their association with the negative bias. Additionally, we propose the negative attention score alignment (NASA) method, which is a parameter-efficient fine-tuning technique to address the extracted negatively biased attention heads. Experimental results from various domains of reasoning tasks and large model search space demonstrate that NASA significantly reduces the gap between precision and recall caused by negative bias while preserving their generalization abilities. Our codes are available at https://github.com/ysw1021/NASA.

In the field of algorithmic fairness, significant attention has been put on group fairness criteria, such as Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. Nevertheless, these objectives, measured as global averages, have raised concerns about persistent local disparities between sensitive groups. In this work, we address the problem of local fairness, which ensures that the predictor is unbiased not only in terms of expectations over the whole population, but also within any subregion of the feature space, unknown at training time. To enforce this objective, we introduce ROAD, a novel approach that leverages the Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) framework within a fair adversarial learning objective, where an adversary tries to infer the sensitive attribute from the predictions. Using an instance-level re-weighting strategy, ROAD is designed to prioritize inputs that are likely to be locally unfair, i.e. where the adversary faces the least difficulty in reconstructing the sensitive attribute. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method: it achieves Pareto dominance with respect to local fairness and accuracy for a given global fairness level across three standard datasets, and also enhances fairness generalization under distribution shift.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator's limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Reasoning-based Bias Detector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types--verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment--evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD's strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively. These results highlight RBD's effectiveness and scalability. Additional experiments further demonstrate its strong generalization across biases and domains, as well as its efficiency.

In critical decision-making scenarios, optimizing accuracy can lead to a biased classifier, hence past work recommends enforcing group-based fairness metrics in addition to maximizing accuracy. However, doing so exposes the classifier to another kind of bias called infra-marginality. This refers to individual-level bias where some individuals/subgroups can be worse off than under simply optimizing for accuracy. For instance, a classifier implementing race-based parity may significantly disadvantage women of the advantaged race. To quantify this bias, we propose a general notion of eta-infra-marginality that can be used to evaluate the extent of this bias. We prove theoretically that, unlike other fairness metrics, infra-marginality does not have a trade-off with accuracy: high accuracy directly leads to low infra-marginality. This observation is confirmed through empirical analysis on multiple simulated and real-world datasets. Further, we find that maximizing group fairness often increases infra-marginality, suggesting the consideration of both group-level fairness and individual-level infra-marginality. However, measuring infra-marginality requires knowledge of the true distribution of individual-level outcomes correctly and explicitly. We propose a practical method to measure infra-marginality, and a simple algorithm to maximize group-wise accuracy and avoid infra-marginality.

Ranking and scoring are ubiquitous. We consider the setting in which an institution, called a ranker, evaluates a set of individuals based on demographic, behavioral or other characteristics. The final output is a ranking that represents the relative quality of the individuals. While automatic and therefore seemingly objective, rankers can, and often do, discriminate against individuals and systematically disadvantage members of protected groups. This warrants a careful study of the fairness of a ranking scheme. In this paper we propose fairness measures for ranked outputs. We develop a data generation procedure that allows us to systematically control the degree of unfairness in the output, and study the behavior of our measures on these datasets. We then apply our proposed measures to several real datasets, and demonstrate cases of unfairness. Finally, we show preliminary results of incorporating our ranked fairness measures into an optimization framework, and show potential for improving fairness of ranked outputs while maintaining accuracy.

Human feedback has become the de facto standard for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models, and is increasingly being used as a training objective. However, it is not clear which properties of a generated output this single `preference' score captures. We hypothesise that preference scores are subjective and open to undesirable biases. We critically analyse the use of human feedback for both training and evaluation, to verify whether it fully captures a range of crucial error criteria. We find that while preference scores have fairly good coverage, they under-represent important aspects like factuality. We further hypothesise that both preference scores and error annotation may be affected by confounders, and leverage instruction-tuned models to generate outputs that vary along two possible confounding dimensions: assertiveness and complexity. We find that the assertiveness of an output skews the perceived rate of factuality errors, indicating that human annotations are not a fully reliable evaluation metric or training objective. Finally, we offer preliminary evidence that using human feedback as a training objective disproportionately increases the assertiveness of model outputs. We encourage future work to carefully consider whether preference scores are well aligned with the desired objective.

We employ an audit design to investigate biases in state-of-the-art large language models, including GPT-4. In our study, we prompt the models for advice involving a named individual across a variety of scenarios, such as during car purchase negotiations or election outcome predictions. We find that the advice systematically disadvantages names that are commonly associated with racial minorities and women. Names associated with Black women receive the least advantageous outcomes. The biases are consistent across 42 prompt templates and several models, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. While providing numerical, decision-relevant anchors in the prompt can successfully counteract the biases, qualitative details have inconsistent effects and may even increase disparities. Our findings underscore the importance of conducting audits at the point of LLM deployment and implementation to mitigate their potential for harm against marginalized communities.

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

Preference learning algorithms (e.g., RLHF and DPO) are frequently used to steer LLMs to produce generations that are more preferred by humans, but our understanding of their inner workings is still limited. In this work, we study the conventional wisdom that preference learning trains models to assign higher likelihoods to more preferred outputs than less preferred outputs, measured via ranking accuracy. Surprisingly, we find that most state-of-the-art preference-tuned models achieve a ranking accuracy of less than 60% on common preference datasets. We furthermore derive the idealized ranking accuracy that a preference-tuned LLM would achieve if it optimized the DPO or RLHF objective perfectly. We demonstrate that existing models exhibit a significant alignment gap -- i.e., a gap between the observed and idealized ranking accuracies. We attribute this discrepancy to the DPO objective, which is empirically and theoretically ill-suited to fix even mild ranking errors in the reference model, and derive a simple and efficient formula for quantifying the difficulty of learning a given preference datapoint. Finally, we demonstrate that ranking accuracy strongly correlates with the empirically popular win rate metric when the model is close to the reference model used in the objective, shedding further light on the differences between on-policy (e.g., RLHF) and off-policy (e.g., DPO) preference learning algorithms.

Quantifying bias in retrieval functions through document retrievability scores is vital for assessing recall-oriented retrieval systems. However, many studies investigating retrieval model bias lack validation of their query generation methods as accurate representations of retrievability for real users and their queries. This limitation results from the absence of established criteria for query generation in retrievability assessments. Typically, researchers resort to using frequent collocations from document corpora when no query log is available. In this study, we address the issue of reproducibility and seek to validate query generation methods by comparing retrievability scores generated from artificially generated queries to those derived from query logs. Our findings demonstrate a minimal or negligible correlation between retrievability scores from artificial queries and those from query logs. This suggests that artificially generated queries may not accurately reflect retrievability scores as derived from query logs. We further explore alternative query generation techniques, uncovering a variation that exhibits the highest correlation. This alternative approach holds promise for improving reproducibility when query logs are unavailable.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in the development of reliable LLMs, and the choice of feedback protocol plays a central role in both but remains understudied. In this work, we show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation (absolute scores versus relative preferences) can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In the context of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, we show that pairwise protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation. Generator models can exploit spurious attributes (or distractor features) favored by the LLM judge, resulting in inflated scores for lower-quality outputs. We find that absolute scoring is more robust to such manipulation, producing judgments that better reflect response quality and are less influenced by distractor features. Our results demonstrate that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features, skewing LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and leading to inaccurate conclusions about model quality in benchmark evaluations. Pairwise preferences flip in about 35% of the cases, compared to only 9% for absolute scores. We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.

University rankings are increasingly adopted for academic comparison and success quantification, even to establish performance-based criteria for funding assignment. However, rankings are not neutral tools, and their use frequently overlooks disparities in the starting conditions of institutions. In this research, we detect and measure structural biases that affect in inhomogeneous ways the ranking outcomes of universities from diversified territorial and educational contexts. Moreover, we develop a fairer rating system based on a fully data-driven debiasing strategy that returns an equity-oriented redefinition of the achieved scores. The key idea consists in partitioning universities in similarity groups, determined from multifaceted data using complex network analysis, and referring the performance of each institution to an expectation based on its peers. Significant evidence of territorial biases emerges for official rankings concerning both the OECD and Italian university systems, hence debiasing provides relevant insights suggesting the design of fairer strategies for performance-based funding allocations.

With the rapid growth in language processing applications, fairness has emerged as an important consideration in data-driven solutions. Although various fairness definitions have been explored in the recent literature, there is lack of consensus on which metrics most accurately reflect the fairness of a system. In this work, we propose a new formulation : ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY, which measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. The metric attempts to quantify the extent to which a single prediction depends on a protected attribute, where the protected attribute encodes the membership status of an individual in a protected group. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness. It also correlates well with humans' perception of fairness. We conduct experiments on two text classification datasets : JIGSAW TOXICITY, and BIAS IN BIOS, and evaluate the correlations between metrics and manual annotations on whether the model produced a fair outcome. We observe that the proposed fairness metric based on prediction sensitivity is statistically significantly more correlated with human annotation than the existing counterfactual fairness metric.

Auditing unwanted social bias in language models (LMs) is inherently hard due to the multidisciplinary nature of the work. In addition, the rapid evolution of LMs can make benchmarks irrelevant in no time. Bias auditing is further complicated by LM brittleness: when a presumably biased outcome is observed, is it due to model bias or model brittleness? We propose enlisting the models themselves to help construct bias auditing datasets that remain challenging, and introduce bias measures that distinguish between types of model errors. First, we extend an existing bias benchmark for NLI (BBNLI) using a combination of LM-generated lexical variations, adversarial filtering, and human validation. We demonstrate that the newly created dataset (BBNLInext) is more challenging than BBNLI: on average, BBNLI-next reduces the accuracy of state-of-the-art NLI models from 95.3%, as observed by BBNLI, to 58.6%. Second, we employ BBNLI-next to showcase the interplay between robustness and bias, and the subtlety in differentiating between the two. Third, we point out shortcomings in current bias scores used in the literature and propose bias measures that take into account pro-/anti-stereotype bias and model brittleness. We will publicly release the BBNLI-next dataset to inspire research on rapidly expanding benchmarks to keep up with model evolution, along with research on the robustness-bias interplay in bias auditing. Note: This paper contains offensive text examples.

ARC Challenge appears more difficult than ARC Easy for modern LLMs primarily due to an evaluation setup that prevents direct comparison of answer choices rather than inherent complexity. Although some researchers have quietly shifted to a more appropriate scheme over the last year, the implications of this change have yet to be widely acknowledged. We highlight this overlooked shift, show how similar evaluation practices falsely imply reasoning deficits in other benchmarks, and demonstrate that fairer methods dramatically reduce performance gaps (e.g. on SIQA) and even yield superhuman results (OpenBookQA). In doing so, we reveal how evaluation shapes perceived difficulty and offer guidelines to ensure that multiple-choice evaluations accurately reflect actual model capabilities.

Models of various NLP tasks have been shown to exhibit stereotypes, and the bias in the question answering (QA) models is especially harmful as the output answers might be directly consumed by the end users. There have been datasets to evaluate bias in QA models, while bias mitigation technique for the QA models is still under-explored. In this work, we propose BMBI, an approach to mitigate the bias of multiple-choice QA models. Based on the intuition that a model would lean to be more biased if it learns from a biased example, we measure the bias level of a query instance by observing its influence on another instance. If the influenced instance is more biased, we derive that the query instance is biased. We then use the bias level detected as an optimization objective to form a multi-task learning setting in addition to the original QA task. We further introduce a new bias evaluation metric to quantify bias in a comprehensive and sensitive way. We show that our method could be applied to multiple QA formulations across multiple bias categories. It can significantly reduce the bias level in all 9 bias categories in the BBQ dataset while maintaining comparable QA accuracy.

A dangerous assumption that can be made from prior work on the bias transfer hypothesis (BTH) is that biases do not transfer from pre-trained large language models (LLMs) to adapted models. We invalidate this assumption by studying the BTH in causal models under prompt adaptations, as prompting is an extremely popular and accessible adaptation strategy used in real-world applications. In contrast to prior work, we find that biases can transfer through prompting and that popular prompt-based mitigation methods do not consistently prevent biases from transferring. Specifically, the correlation between intrinsic biases and those after prompt adaptation remain moderate to strong across demographics and tasks -- for example, gender (rho >= 0.94) in co-reference resolution, and age (rho >= 0.98) and religion (rho >= 0.69) in question answering. Further, we find that biases remain strongly correlated when varying few-shot composition parameters, such as sample size, stereotypical content, occupational distribution and representational balance (rho >= 0.90). We evaluate several prompt-based debiasing strategies and find that different approaches have distinct strengths, but none consistently reduce bias transfer across models, tasks or demographics. These results demonstrate that correcting bias, and potentially improving reasoning ability, in intrinsic models may prevent propagation of biases to downstream tasks.

LLMs are increasingly powerful and widely used to assist users in a variety of tasks. This use risks the introduction of LLM biases to consequential decisions such as job hiring, human performance evaluation, and criminal sentencing. Bias in NLP systems along the lines of gender and ethnicity has been widely studied, especially for specific stereotypes (e.g., Asians are good at math). In this paper, we investigate bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty, measuring subtler correlated decisions that LLMs make between social groups and unrelated positive and negative attributes. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the ``what is beautiful is good'' bias found in people in experimental psychology. We introduce a template-generated dataset of sentence completion tasks that asks the model to select the most appropriate attribute to complete an evaluative statement about a person described as a member of a specific social group. We also reverse the completion task to select the social group based on an attribute. We report the correlations that we find for 4 cutting-edge LLMs. This dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress in more generalized biases and the templating technique can be used to expand the benchmark with minimal additional human annotation.

LLM-as-a-judge has emerged as a cornerstone technique for evaluating large language models by leveraging LLM reasoning to score prompt-response pairs. Since LLM judgments are stochastic, practitioners commonly query each pair multiple times to estimate mean scores accurately. This raises a critical challenge: given a fixed computational budget B, how to optimally allocate queries across K prompt-response pairs to minimize estimation error? % We present a principled variance-adaptive approach leveraging multi-armed bandit theory and concentration inequalities. Our method dynamically allocates queries based on estimated score variances, concentrating resources where uncertainty is highest. Further, our algorithm is shown to achieve a worst-case score-estimation error of Oleft(frac{sum_{i=1^K σ_i^2}{B}}right), σ_i^2 being the unknown score variance for pair i in [K] with near-optimal budget allocation. % Experiments on Summarize-From-Feedback and HelpSteer2 demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms uniform allocation, reducing worst-case estimation error while maintaining identical budgets. Our work establishes a theoretical foundation for efficient LLM evaluation with practical implications for AI safety, model alignment, and automated assessment at scale.

Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly undermines their reliability and fairness. We focus on a common form of bias: when two reference concepts in the model's concept space, such as sentiment polarities (e.g., "positive" and "negative"), are asymmetrically correlated with a third, target concept, such as a reviewing aspect, the model exhibits unintended bias. For instance, the understanding of "food" should not skew toward any particular sentiment. Existing bias evaluation methods assess behavioral differences of LLMs by constructing labeled data for different social groups and measuring model responses across them, a process that requires substantial human effort and captures only a limited set of social concepts. To overcome these limitations, we propose BiasLens, a test-set-free bias analysis framework based on the structure of the model's vector space. BiasLens combines Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) with Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to extract interpretable concept representations, and quantifies bias by measuring the variation in representational similarity between the target concept and each of the reference concepts. Even without labeled data, BiasLens shows strong agreement with traditional bias evaluation metrics (Spearman correlation r > 0.85). Moreover, BiasLens reveals forms of bias that are difficult to detect using existing methods. For example, in simulated clinical scenarios, a patient's insurance status can cause the LLM to produce biased diagnostic assessments. Overall, BiasLens offers a scalable, interpretable, and efficient paradigm for bias discovery, paving the way for improving fairness and transparency in LLMs.

DARTS search space (DSS) has become a canonical benchmark for NAS whereas some emerging works pointed out the issue of narrow accuracy range and claimed it would hurt the method ranking. We observe some recent studies already suffer from this issue that overshadows the meaning of scores. In this work, we first propose and orchestrate a suite of improvements to frame a larger and harder DSS, termed LHD, while retaining high efficiency in search. We step forward to renovate a LHD-based new benchmark, taking care of both discernibility and accessibility. Specifically, we re-implement twelve baselines and evaluate them across twelve conditions by combining two underexpolored influential factors: transductive robustness and discretization policy, to reasonably construct a benchmark upon multi-condition evaluation. Considering that the tabular benchmarks are always insufficient to adequately evaluate the methods of neural architecture search (NAS), our work can serve as a crucial basis for the future progress of NAS. https://github.com/chaoji90/LHD

Existing studies on bias mitigation methods for large language models (LLMs) use diverse baselines and metrics to evaluate debiasing performance, leading to inconsistent comparisons among them. Moreover, their evaluations are mostly based on the comparison between LLMs' probabilities of biased and unbiased contexts, which ignores the gap between such evaluations and real-world use cases where users interact with LLMs by reading model responses and expect fair and safe outputs rather than LLMs' probabilities. To enable consistent evaluation across debiasing methods and bridge this gap, we introduce BiasFreeBench, an empirical benchmark that comprehensively compares eight mainstream bias mitigation techniques (covering four prompting-based and four training-based methods) on two test scenarios (multi-choice QA and open-ended multi-turn QA) by reorganizing existing datasets into a unified query-response setting. We further introduce a response-level metric, Bias-Free Score, to measure the extent to which LLM responses are fair, safe, and anti-stereotypical. Debiasing performances are systematically compared and analyzed across key dimensions: the prompting vs. training paradigm, model size, and generalization of different training strategies to unseen bias types. We will publicly release our benchmark, aiming to establish a unified testbed for bias mitigation research.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly take actions (screening applicants, recommending credit, triaging patients), yet fairness for LLMs is still measured by grading answers. We introduce AgentFairBench, a cheap, reproducible, multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in the actions of LLM agents. Grounded in a companion framework, the Bias Conduction Framework (BCF, restated here), it spans three regulator-anchored domains: hiring, lending, and medical triage. Synthetic, demographic-neutral profiles are evaluated in counterfactual matched sets that vary only a name-coded race x gender signal (in the Bertrand Mullainathan tradition), under four agent scaffolds of increasing agency (direct, chain-of-thought, multi-agent deliberation, tool-augmented). A NumPy-only harness computes counterfactual flip rate, mean absolute score difference (MASD), action-rate disparity, and tool-invocation disparity, with bootstrap confidence intervals, paired tests, and false-discovery-rate control, for single-digit dollars per model. A live leaderboard with a held-out private split and a contamination canary admits external models by submission. Our pilot (864 decisions plus a test-retest replication) carries a methodological lesson: comparing a six-group score spread against a two-run noise difference overstates disparity by ~ 2.4X through statistic arity alone. Against an arity matched noise floor and an omnibus group test, claude haiku 4 5 shows no demographic effect above sampling noise (0 of 120 pairwise and 0 of 9 omnibus contrasts survive correction); a planted-bias test confirms the instrument detects disparity when present. The contribution is a sound, sensitive, adoption-ready instrument, the arity matched null methodology, and open artifacts to scale it. Code, data, and harness are released under open licenses, with an anonymized review artifact.

While language embeddings have been shown to have stereotyping biases, how these biases affect downstream question answering (QA) models remains unexplored. We present UNQOVER, a general framework to probe and quantify biases through underspecified questions. We show that a naive use of model scores can lead to incorrect bias estimates due to two forms of reasoning errors: positional dependence and question independence. We design a formalism that isolates the aforementioned errors. As case studies, we use this metric to analyze four important classes of stereotypes: gender, nationality, ethnicity, and religion. We probe five transformer-based QA models trained on two QA datasets, along with their underlying language models. Our broad study reveals that (1) all these models, with and without fine-tuning, have notable stereotyping biases in these classes; (2) larger models often have higher bias; and (3) the effect of fine-tuning on bias varies strongly with the dataset and the model size.

The class of direct preference optimization (DPO) algorithms has emerged as a promising approach for solving the alignment problem in foundation models. These algorithms work with very limited feedback in the form of pairwise preferences and fine-tune models to align with these preferences without explicitly learning a reward model. While the form of feedback used by these algorithms makes the data collection process easy and relatively more accurate, its ambiguity in terms of the quality of responses could have negative implications. For example, it is not clear if a decrease (increase) in the likelihood of preferred (dispreferred) responses during the execution of these algorithms could be interpreted as a positive or negative phenomenon. In this paper, we study how to design algorithms that can leverage additional information in the form of rating gap, which informs the learner how much the chosen response is better than the rejected one. We present new algorithms that can achieve faster statistical rates than DPO in presence of accurate rating gap information. Moreover, we theoretically prove and empirically show that the performance of our algorithms is robust to inaccuracy in rating gaps. Finally, we demonstrate the solid performance of our methods in comparison to a number of DPO-style algorithms across a wide range of LLMs and evaluation benchmarks.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to evaluate the quality of text, a field commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior works mainly focus on point-wise and pair-wise evaluation paradigms. Rubric-based evaluation, where LLMs select a score from multiple rubrics, has received less analysis. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multi-choice setting and therefore has position bias: LLMs prefer score options appearing at specific positions in the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate consistent position bias. To mitigate this bias, we propose a balanced permutation strategy that evenly distributes each score option across positions. We show that aggregating scores across balanced permutations not only reveals latent position bias, but also improves correlation between the LLM-as-a-Judge and human. Our results suggest that rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge is not inherently point-wise and that simple permutation-based calibration can substantially improve its reliability.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Dense retrievers exhibit positional bias, favoring documents whose query-relevant information appears near the beginning and degrading retrieval performance when the information appears later. While prior work on positional bias in dense retrievers has largely focused on architectural explanations, we study how the positional distribution of evidence in training data affects retrieval-level bias direction. To test this, we construct synthetic position-targeted training sets in which query-relevant evidence appears at the beginning, middle, or end of documents, and fine-tune eight architecturally diverse pretrained models under position-skewed and balanced training distributions. At the ranking level, we observe a strong directional pattern across the examined models: skewed training distributions favor evidence at the corresponding positions. Position-balanced training reduces positional sensitivity by 57--87\% on position-aware benchmarks, with competitive mean retrieval performance in our controlled setting. Representation-level analyses further suggest that fine-tuning often reshapes learned positional preferences, although pre-existing architectural or pretraining-specific tendencies persist in some models. These results identify training-position distribution as a major controllable factor in retrieval-level position bias and suggest balanced data curation as a practical mitigation strategy.

Bias in textual data can lead to skewed interpretations and outcomes when the data is used. These biases could perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination, or other forms of unfair treatment. An algorithm trained on biased data may end up making decisions that disproportionately impact a certain group of people. Therefore, it is crucial to detect and remove these biases to ensure the fair and ethical use of data. To this end, we develop a comprehensive and robust framework NBIAS that consists of four main layers: data, corpus construction, model development and an evaluation layer. The dataset is constructed by collecting diverse data from various domains, including social media, healthcare, and job hiring portals. As such, we applied a transformer-based token classification model that is able to identify bias words/ phrases through a unique named entity BIAS. In the evaluation procedure, we incorporate a blend of quantitative and qualitative measures to gauge the effectiveness of our models. We achieve accuracy improvements ranging from 1% to 8% compared to baselines. We are also able to generate a robust understanding of the model functioning. The proposed approach is applicable to a variety of biases and contributes to the fair and ethical use of textual data.

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has made it difficult to differentiate human-written text from AI-generated text. Several AI-text detectors have been developed in response, which typically utilize a fixed global threshold (e.g., {\theta} = 0.5) to classify machine-generated text. However, we find that one universal threshold can fail to account for subgroup-specific distributional variations. For example, when using a fixed threshold, detectors make more false positive errors on shorter human-written text than longer, and more positive classifications on neurotic writing styles than open among long text. These discrepancies can lead to misclassification that disproportionately affects certain groups. We address this critical limitation by introducing FairOPT, an algorithm for group-specific threshold optimization in AI-generated content classifiers. Our approach partitions data into subgroups based on attributes (e.g., text length and writing style) and learns decision thresholds for each group, which enables careful balancing of performance and fairness metrics within each subgroup. In experiments with four AI text classifiers on three datasets, FairOPT enhances overall F1 score and decreases balanced error rate (BER) discrepancy across subgroups. Our framework paves the way for more robust and fair classification criteria in AI-generated output detection.

Retrieval Augmented Generation enhances LLM accuracy by adding passages retrieved from an external corpus to the LLM prompt. This paper investigates how positional bias - the tendency of LLMs to weight information differently based on its position in the prompt - affects not only the LLM's capability to capitalize on relevant passages, but also its susceptibility to distracting passages. Through extensive experiments on three benchmarks, we show how state-of-the-art retrieval pipelines, while attempting to retrieve relevant passages, systematically bring highly distracting ones to the top ranks, with over 60% of queries containing at least one highly distracting passage among the top-10 retrieved passages. As a result, the impact of the LLM positional bias, which in controlled settings is often reported as very prominent by related works, is actually marginal in real scenarios since both relevant and distracting passages are, in turn, penalized. Indeed, our findings reveal that sophisticated strategies that attempt to rearrange the passages based on LLM positional preferences do not perform better than random shuffling.

We present a new approach for mitigating unfairness in learned classifiers. In particular, we focus on binary classification tasks over individuals from two populations, where, as our criterion for fairness, we wish to achieve similar false positive rates in both populations, and similar false negative rates in both populations. As a proof of concept, we implement our approach and empirically evaluate its ability to achieve both fairness and accuracy, using datasets from the fields of criminal risk assessment, credit, lending, and college admissions.

Recency bias in a sequential recommendation system refers to the overly high emphasis placed on recent items within a user session. This bias can diminish the serendipity of recommendations and hinder the system's ability to capture users' long-term interests, leading to user disengagement. We propose a simple yet effective novel metric specifically designed to quantify recency bias. Our findings also demonstrate that high recency bias measured in our proposed metric adversely impacts recommendation performance too, and mitigating it results in improved recommendation performances across all models evaluated in our experiments, thus highlighting the importance of measuring recency bias.

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) generalize across different task difficulties, a key question for effective data curation and evaluation. Existing research is mixed regarding whether training on easier or harder data leads to better results, and whether those gains come on easier or harder test data. We address this question by conducting a systematic evaluation of LLMs' generalization across models, datasets, and fine-grained groups of example difficulty. We rank examples in six datasets using the outputs of thousands of different LLMs and Item Response Theory (IRT), a well-established difficulty metric in educational testing. Unlike prior work, our difficulty ratings are therefore determined solely by the abilities of many different LLMs, excluding human opinions of difficulty. With a more objective, larger-scale, and finer-grained analysis, we show that cross-difficulty generalization is often limited; training on either easy or hard data cannot achieve consistent improvements across the full range of difficulties. These results show the importance of having a range of difficulties in both training and evaluation data for LLMs, and that taking shortcuts with respect to difficulty is risky.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

The Large Language Model Bias Index (LLMBI) is a pioneering approach designed to quantify and address biases inherent in large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4. We recognise the increasing prevalence and impact of LLMs across diverse sectors. This research introduces a novel metric, LLMBI, to systematically measure and mitigate biases potentially skewing model responses. We formulated LLMBI using a composite scoring system incorporating multiple dimensions of bias, including but not limited to age, gender, and racial biases. To operationalise this metric, we engaged in a multi-step process involving collecting and annotating LLM responses, applying sophisticated Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques for bias detection, and computing the LLMBI score through a specially crafted mathematical formula. The formula integrates weighted averages of various bias dimensions, a penalty for dataset diversity deficiencies, and a correction for sentiment biases. Our empirical analysis, conducted using responses from OpenAI's API, employs advanced sentiment analysis as a representative method for bias detection. The research reveals LLMs, whilst demonstrating impressive capabilities in text generation, exhibit varying degrees of bias across different dimensions. LLMBI provides a quantifiable measure to compare biases across models and over time, offering a vital tool for systems engineers, researchers and regulators in enhancing the fairness and reliability of LLMs. It highlights the potential of LLMs in mimicking unbiased human-like responses. Additionally, it underscores the necessity of continuously monitoring and recalibrating such models to align with evolving societal norms and ethical standards.

What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender, religious practice) and an explicit description of the process. When the process is implemented using computers, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the algorithm, we propose making inferences based on the data the algorithm uses. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we link the legal notion of disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on analyzing the information leakage of the protected class from the other data attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard "LLM-as-a-Judge" protocols suffer from a systematic Alignment Gap when applied to upper-undergraduate to early graduate level mathematics. To quantify this, we introduce QEDBench, the first large-scale dual-rubric alignment benchmark to systematically measure alignment with human experts on university-level math proofs by contrasting course-specific rubrics against expert common knowledge criteria. By deploying a dual-evaluation matrix (7 judges x 5 solvers) against 1,000+ hours of human evaluation, we reveal that certain frontier evaluators like Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen 2.5 Max, and Llama 4 Maverick exhibit significant positive bias (up to +0.18, +0.20, +0.30, +0.36 mean score inflation, respectively). Furthermore, we uncover a critical reasoning gap in the discrete domain: while Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves state-of-the-art performance (0.91 average human evaluation score), other reasoning models like GPT-5 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5 see their performance significantly degrade in discrete domains. Specifically, their average human evaluation scores drop to 0.72 and 0.63 in Discrete Math, and to 0.74 and 0.50 in Graph Theory. In addition to these research results, we also release QEDBench as a public benchmark for evaluating and improving AI judges. Our benchmark is publicly published at https://github.com/qqliu/Yale-QEDBench.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical decision-making. However, their potential to exhibit bias poses significant risks to clinical equity. Currently, there is a lack of benchmarks that systematically evaluate such clinical bias in LLMs. While in downstream tasks, some biases of LLMs can be avoided such as by instructing the model to answer "I'm not sure...", the internal bias hidden within the model still lacks deep studies. We introduce CLIMB (shorthand for A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models), a pioneering comprehensive benchmark to evaluate both intrinsic (within LLMs) and extrinsic (on downstream tasks) bias in LLMs for clinical decision tasks. Notably, for intrinsic bias, we introduce a novel metric, AssocMAD, to assess the disparities of LLMs across multiple demographic groups. Additionally, we leverage counterfactual intervention to evaluate extrinsic bias in a task of clinical diagnosis prediction. Our experiments across popular and medically adapted LLMs, particularly from the Mistral and LLaMA families, unveil prevalent behaviors with both intrinsic and extrinsic bias. This work underscores the critical need to mitigate clinical bias and sets a new standard for future evaluations of LLMs' clinical bias.

Recently, there has been a trend of evaluating the Large Language Model (LLM) quality in the flavor of LLM-as-a-Judge, namely leveraging another LLM to evaluate the current output quality. However, existing judges are proven to be biased, namely they would favor answers which present better superficial quality (such as verbosity, fluency) while ignoring the instruction following ability. In this work, we propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, for closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality, both on probability level and prompt level. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality. We apply our methods on the bias evaluation benchmark, and experiment results show our methods mitigate the bias by a large margin while maintaining a satisfactory evaluation accuracy.

The fairness of machine learning-based decisions has become an increasingly important focus in the design of supervised machine learning methods. Most fairness approaches optimize a specified trade-off between performance measure(s) (e.g., accuracy, log loss, or AUC) and fairness metric(s) (e.g., demographic parity, equalized odds). This begs the question: are the right performance-fairness trade-offs being specified? We instead re-cast fair machine learning as an imitation learning task by introducing superhuman fairness, which seeks to simultaneously outperform human decisions on multiple predictive performance and fairness measures. We demonstrate the benefits of this approach given suboptimal decisions.

As large language models take on growing roles as automated evaluators in practical settings, a critical question arises: Can individuals persuade an LLM judge to assign unfairly high scores? This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks, where correctness should be independent of stylistic variation. Grounded in Aristotle's rhetorical principles, we formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses. Across six math benchmarks, we find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion. Notably, increasing model size does not substantially mitigate this vulnerability. Further analysis demonstrates that combining multiple persuasion techniques amplifies the bias, and pairwise evaluation is likewise susceptible. Moreover, the persuasive effect persists under counter prompting strategies, highlighting a critical vulnerability in LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines and underscoring the need for robust defenses against persuasion-based attacks.

Transferring knowledge from a cross-encoder teacher via Knowledge Distillation (KD) has become a standard paradigm for training retrieval models. While existing studies have largely focused on mining hard negatives to improve discrimination, the systematic composition of training data and the resulting teacher score distribution have received relatively less attention. In this work, we highlight that focusing solely on hard negatives prevents the student from learning the comprehensive preference structure of the teacher, potentially hampering generalization. To effectively emulate the teacher score distribution, we propose a Stratified Sampling strategy that uniformly covers the entire score spectrum. Experiments on in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks confirm that Stratified Sampling, which preserves the variance and entropy of teacher scores, serves as a robust baseline, significantly outperforming top-K and random sampling in diverse settings. These findings suggest that the essence of distillation lies in preserving the diverse range of relative scores perceived by the teacher.

Closed-loop decision-making systems (e.g., lending, screening, or recidivism risk assessment) often operate under fairness and service constraints while inducing feedback effects: decisions change who appears in the future, yielding non-stationary data and potentially amplifying disparities. We study online learning of a one-dimensional threshold policy from bandit feedback under demographic parity (DP) and, optionally, service-rate constraints. The learner observes only a scalar score each round and selects a threshold; reward and constraint residuals are revealed only for the chosen threshold. We propose Optimistic Feasible Search (OFS), a simple grid-based method that maintains confidence bounds for reward and constraint residuals for each candidate threshold. At each round, OFS selects a threshold that appears feasible under confidence bounds and, among those, maximizes optimistic reward; if no threshold appears feasible, OFS selects the threshold minimizing optimistic constraint violation. This design directly targets feasible high-utility thresholds and is particularly effective for low-dimensional, interpretable policy classes where discretization is natural. We evaluate OFS on (i) a synthetic closed-loop benchmark with stable contraction dynamics and (ii) two semi-synthetic closed-loop benchmarks grounded in German Credit and COMPAS, constructed by training a score model and feeding group-dependent acceptance decisions back into population composition. Across all environments, OFS achieves higher reward with smaller cumulative constraint violation than unconstrained and primal-dual bandit baselines, and is near-oracle relative to the best feasible fixed threshold under the same sweep procedure. Experiments are reproducible and organized with double-blind-friendly relative outputs.

Deep-learning based Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) systems are being actively used by states and language testing agencies alike to evaluate millions of candidates for life-changing decisions ranging from college applications to visa approvals. However, little research has been put to understand and interpret the black-box nature of deep-learning based scoring algorithms. Previous studies indicate that scoring models can be easily fooled. In this paper, we explore the reason behind their surprising adversarial brittleness. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content, vocabulary, and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms. We use this to investigate the oversensitivity i.e., large change in output score with a little change in input essay content) and overstability i.e., little change in output scores with large changes in input essay content) of AES. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models with rich contextual embeddings such as BERT, behave like bag-of-words models. A few words determine the essay score without the requirement of any context making the model largely overstable. This is in stark contrast to recent probing studies on pre-trained representation learning models, which show that rich linguistic features such as parts-of-speech and morphology are encoded by them. Further, we also find that the models have learnt dataset biases, making them oversensitive. To deal with these issues, we propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies. We find that our proposed models are able to detect unusual attribution patterns and flag adversarial samples successfully.

Speech models may be affected by performance imbalance in different population subgroups, raising concerns about fair treatment across these groups. Prior attempts to mitigate unfairness either focus on user-defined subgroups, potentially overlooking other affected subgroups, or do not explicitly improve the internal representation at the subgroup level. This paper proposes the first adoption of contrastive learning to mitigate speech model bias in underperforming subgroups. We employ a three-level learning technique that guides the model in focusing on different scopes for the contrastive loss, i.e., task, subgroup, and the errors within subgroups. The experiments on two spoken language understanding datasets and two languages demonstrate that our approach improves internal subgroup representations, thus reducing model bias and enhancing performance.

Recommendation systems (RS) aim to provide personalized content, but they face a challenge in unbiased learning due to selection bias, where users only interact with items they prefer. This bias leads to a distorted representation of user preferences, which hinders the accuracy and fairness of recommendations. To address the issue, various methods such as error imputation based, inverse propensity scoring, and doubly robust techniques have been developed. Despite the progress, from the structural causal model perspective, previous debiasing methods in RS assume the independence of the exogenous variables. In this paper, we release this assumption and propose a learning algorithm based on likelihood maximization to learn a prediction model. We first discuss the correlation and difference between unmeasured confounding and our scenario, then we propose a unified method that effectively handles latent exogenous variables. Specifically, our method models the data generation process with latent exogenous variables under mild normality assumptions. We then develop a Monte Carlo algorithm to numerically estimate the likelihood function. Extensive experiments on synthetic datasets and three real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method. The code is at https://github.com/WallaceSUI/kdd25-background-variable.

LLM-based listwise passage reranking has attracted attention for its effectiveness in ranking candidate passages. However, these models suffer from positional bias, where passages positioned towards the end of the input are less likely to be moved to top positions in the ranking. We hypothesize that there are two primary sources of positional bias: (1) architectural bias inherent in LLMs and (2) the imbalanced positioning of relevant documents. To address this, we propose DebiasFirst, a method that integrates positional calibration and position-aware data augmentation during fine-tuning. Positional calibration uses inverse propensity scoring to adjust for positional bias by re-weighting the contributions of different positions in the loss function when training. Position-aware augmentation augments training data to ensure that each passage appears equally across varied positions in the input list. This approach markedly enhances both effectiveness and robustness to the original ranking across diverse first-stage retrievers, reducing the dependence of NDCG@10 performance on the position of relevant documents. DebiasFirst also complements the inference-stage debiasing methods, offering a practical solution for mitigating positional bias in reranking.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, raising important questions about their biases in LLM-as-a-judge settings. We present a comprehensive benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets. Through investigation of bandwagon, authority, position, and distraction biases, we uncover four key findings: (1) despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, LRMs remain susceptible to the above biases; (2) LRMs demonstrate better robustness than LLMs specifically on fact-related datasets; (3) LRMs exhibit notable position bias, preferring options in later positions; and (4) we identify a novel "superficial reflection bias" where phrases mimicking reasoning (e.g., "wait, let me think...") significantly influence model judgments. To address these biases, we design and evaluate three mitigation strategies: specialized system prompts that reduce judging biases by up to 19\% in preference alignment datasets and 14\% in fact-related datasets, in-context learning that provides up to 27\% improvement on preference tasks but shows inconsistent results on factual tasks, and a self-reflection mechanism that reduces biases by up to 10\% in preference datasets and 16\% in fact-related datasets, with self-reflection proving particularly effective for LRMs. Our work provides crucial insights for developing more reliable LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, especially as LRMs become increasingly deployed as automated judges.

Mitigating explicit and implicit biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a critical focus in the field of natural language processing. However, many current methodologies evaluate scenarios in isolation, without considering the broader context or the spectrum of potential biases within each situation. To address this, we introduce the Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions (STOP) dataset, which includes 450 offensive progressions containing 2,700 unique sentences of varying severity that progressively escalate from less to more explicitly offensive. Covering a broad spectrum of 9 demographics and 46 sub-demographics, STOP ensures inclusivity and comprehensive coverage. We evaluate several leading closed- and open-source models, including GPT-4, Mixtral, and Llama 3. Our findings reveal that even the best-performing models detect bias inconsistently, with success rates ranging from 19.3% to 69.8%. We also demonstrate how aligning models with human judgments on STOP can improve model answer rates on sensitive tasks such as BBQ, StereoSet, and CrowS-Pairs by up to 191%, while maintaining or even improving performance. STOP presents a novel framework for assessing the complex nature of biases in LLMs, which will enable more effective bias mitigation strategies and facilitates the creation of fairer language models.

Instruction embedding models have become common among state-of-the-art models, however are evaluated using a single prompt per task. The single-point evaluation ignores a main problem of the instruction-based approach namely: sensitivity to the phrasing of the instruction. We present an empirical study of prompt sensitivity across 6 embedding models, 11 datasets, and 15 task-specific prompts per dataset, a total of 990. We show that reported scores misrepresent the distribution of scores over plausible prompts. The default prompt can both systematically understate or overstate performance. Furthermore, we show that the leaderboard ranking is not robust to prompt selection: by choosing prompts favorably, any model in our study can be promoted to first place. Our findings suggest that single-prompt evaluation is insufficient for instruction-tuned embedding models and that benchmarks should incorporate prompt robustness, either by evaluating over multiple prompts or by reporting sensitivity alongside point estimates.

As Learning-to-Rank (LTR) approaches primarily seek to improve ranking quality, their output scores are not scale-calibrated by design. This fundamentally limits LTR usage in score-sensitive applications. Though a simple multi-objective approach that combines a regression and a ranking objective can effectively learn scale-calibrated scores, we argue that the two objectives are not necessarily compatible, which makes the trade-off less ideal for either of them. In this paper, we propose a practical regression compatible ranking (RCR) approach that achieves a better trade-off, where the two ranking and regression components are proved to be mutually aligned. Although the same idea applies to ranking with both binary and graded relevance, we mainly focus on binary labels in this paper. We evaluate the proposed approach on several public LTR benchmarks and show that it consistently achieves either best or competitive result in terms of both regression and ranking metrics, and significantly improves the Pareto frontiers in the context of multi-objective optimization. Furthermore, we evaluated the proposed approach on YouTube Search and found that it not only improved the ranking quality of the production pCTR model, but also brought gains to the click prediction accuracy. The proposed approach has been successfully deployed in the YouTube production system.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on extensive web corpora, which enable them to understand and generate human-like text. However, this training process also results in inherent biases within the models. These biases arise from web data's diverse and often uncurated nature, containing various stereotypes and prejudices. Previous works on debiasing models rely on benchmark datasets to measure their method's performance. However, these datasets suffer from several pitfalls due to the highly subjective understanding of bias, highlighting a critical need for contextual exploration. We propose understanding the context of inputs by considering the diverse situations in which they may arise. Our contribution is two-fold: (i) we augment 2,291 stereotyped statements from two existing bias-benchmark datasets with points for adding context; (ii) we develop the Context-Oriented Bias Indicator and Assessment Score (COBIAS) to assess a statement's contextual reliability in measuring bias. Our metric aligns with human judgment on contextual reliability of statements (Spearman's rho = 0.65, p = 3.4 * 10^{-60}) and can be used to create reliable datasets, which would assist bias mitigation works.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and its variants are increasingly used for aligning language models with human preferences. Although these methods are designed to teach a model to generate preferred responses more frequently relative to dispreferred responses, prior work has observed that the likelihood of preferred responses often decreases during training. The current work sheds light on the causes and implications of this counter-intuitive phenomenon, which we term likelihood displacement. We demonstrate that likelihood displacement can be catastrophic, shifting probability mass from preferred responses to responses with an opposite meaning. As a simple example, training a model to prefer No over Never can sharply increase the probability of Yes. Moreover, when aligning the model to refuse unsafe prompts, we show that such displacement can unintentionally lead to unalignment, by shifting probability mass from preferred refusal responses to harmful responses (e.g., reducing the refusal rate of Llama-3-8B-Instruct from 74.4% to 33.4%). We theoretically characterize that likelihood displacement is driven by preferences that induce similar embeddings, as measured by a centered hidden embedding similarity (CHES) score. Empirically, the CHES score enables identifying which training samples contribute most to likelihood displacement in a given dataset. Filtering out these samples effectively mitigated unintentional unalignment in our experiments. More broadly, our results highlight the importance of curating data with sufficiently distinct preferences, for which we believe the CHES score may prove valuable.

Strictly proper scoring rules identify the true conditional class distribution at population level, but their curvature can alter optimization and finite-sample behavior. We study three multiclass objectives: a class-aware quadratic Bregman score (CAPM), a strongly convex generator with constrained log-cosh ridges (HPG), and an HPG objective with an annealed probability-margin penalty (APMS). CAPM is treated as a structured instance of established quadratic scoring-rule theory. We derive conditional-regret, curvature, range, and logit-gradient bounds for CAPM and HPG, and prove exact penalty-range and conditional-target displacement bounds for APMS. Controlled five-seed experiments use Digits, Wisconsin breast cancer, and synthetic confusion and long-tail problems under clean labels, symmetric and pair-flip corruption, class imbalance, calibration evaluation, input corruption, and first-order adversarial perturbations. The candidates are close to cross-entropy on clean data and show descriptive gains in some noisy-label cells, but the five-seed comparisons are interpreted descriptively rather than as significance evidence. The selected noisy-label baselines perform better on Digits with 40% symmetric label noise, and explicit prior-adjustment methods perform better in the 30:1 synthetic long-tail experiment. Ablations do not show a consistent benefit from the candidate-specific graph, ridge, or margin components. The mathematical analysis establishes the stated properties, and the experiments delimit the empirical evidence; together they do not support a claim of general superiority.

Activation-based steering can personalize large language models at inference time, but its effects in educational settings remain unclear. We study persona vectors for seven character traits in short-answer generation and automated scoring on the ASAP-SAS benchmark across three models spanning two architectures. Persona steering lowers answer quality overall, with much larger effects on open-ended English Language Arts (ELA) prompts than on factual science prompts; interpretive and argumentative tasks are up to 11x more sensitive. On the scoring side, we observe predictable valence-aligned calibration shifts: evil and impolite scorers grade more harshly, while good and optimistic scorers grade more leniently. ELA tasks are 2.5-3x more susceptible to scorer personalization than science tasks, and the Mixture-of-Experts model shows roughly 6x larger calibration shifts than the dense models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically examine the effects of activation-steered persona traits in educational generation and scoring, and the results highlight the need for task-aware and architecture-aware calibration when deploying steered models in educational settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can infer sensitive attributes such as gender or age from indirect cues like names and pronouns, potentially biasing recommendations. While several debiasing methods exist, they require access to the LLMs' weights, are computationally costly, and cannot be used by lay users. To address this gap, we investigate implicit biases in LLM Recommenders (LLMRecs) and explore whether prompt-based strategies can serve as a lightweight and easy-to-use debiasing approach. We contribute three bias-aware prompting strategies for LLMRecs. To our knowledge, this is the first study on prompt-based debiasing approaches in LLMRecs that focuses on group fairness for users. Our experiments with 3 LLMs, 4 prompt templates, 9 sensitive attribute values, and 2 datasets show that our proposed debiasing approach, which instructs an LLM to be fair, can improve fairness by up to 74% while retaining comparable effectiveness, but might overpromote specific demographic groups in some cases.

Denoising Score Matching estimates the score of a noised version of a target distribution by minimizing a regression loss and is widely used to train the popular class of Denoising Diffusion Models. A well known limitation of Denoising Score Matching, however, is that it yields poor estimates of the score at low noise levels. This issue is particularly unfavourable for problems in the physical sciences and for Monte Carlo sampling tasks for which the score of the clean original target is known. Intuitively, estimating the score of a slightly noised version of the target should be a simple task in such cases. In this paper, we address this shortcoming and show that it is indeed possible to leverage knowledge of the target score. We present a Target Score Identity and corresponding Target Score Matching regression loss which allows us to obtain score estimates admitting favourable properties at low noise levels.

We introduce Metric-Fair Prompting, a fairness-aware prompting framework that guides large language models (LLMs) to make decisions under metric-fairness constraints. In the application of multiple-choice medical question answering, each {(question, option)} pair is treated as a binary instance with label +1 (correct) or -1 (incorrect). To promote {individual fairness}~--~treating similar instances similarly~--~we compute question similarity using NLP embeddings and solve items in joint pairs of similar questions rather than in isolation. The prompt enforces a global decision protocol: extract decisive clinical features, map each \((question, option)\) to a score f(x) that acts as confidence, and impose a Lipschitz-style constraint so that similar inputs receive similar scores and, hence, consistent outputs. Evaluated on the {MedQA (US)} benchmark, Metric-Fair Prompting is shown to improve performance over standard single-item prompting, demonstrating that fairness-guided, confidence-oriented reasoning can enhance LLM accuracy on high-stakes clinical multiple-choice questions.

Machine translation has an undesirable propensity to produce "translationese" artifacts, which can lead to higher BLEU scores while being liked less by human raters. Motivated by this, we model translationese and original (i.e. natural) text as separate languages in a multilingual model, and pose the question: can we perform zero-shot translation between original source text and original target text? There is no data with original source and original target, so we train sentence-level classifiers to distinguish translationese from original target text, and use this classifier to tag the training data for an NMT model. Using this technique we bias the model to produce more natural outputs at test time, yielding gains in human evaluation scores on both accuracy and fluency. Additionally, we demonstrate that it is possible to bias the model to produce translationese and game the BLEU score, increasing it while decreasing human-rated quality. We analyze these models using metrics to measure the degree of translationese in the output, and present an analysis of the capriciousness of heuristically-based train-data tagging.

Recent literature has suggested the potential of using large language models (LLMs) to make classifications for tabular tasks. However, LLMs have been shown to exhibit harmful social biases that reflect the stereotypes and inequalities present in society. To this end, as well as the widespread use of tabular data in many high-stake applications, it is important to explore the following questions: what sources of information do LLMs draw upon when making classifications for tabular tasks; whether and to what extent are LLM classifications for tabular data influenced by social biases and stereotypes; and what are the consequential implications for fairness? Through a series of experiments, we delve into these questions and show that LLMs tend to inherit social biases from their training data which significantly impact their fairness in tabular classification tasks. Furthermore, our investigations show that in the context of bias mitigation, though in-context learning and finetuning have a moderate effect, the fairness metric gap between different subgroups is still larger than that in traditional machine learning models, such as Random Forest and shallow Neural Networks. This observation emphasizes that the social biases are inherent within the LLMs themselves and inherited from their pretraining corpus, not only from the downstream task datasets. Besides, we demonstrate that label-flipping of in-context examples can significantly reduce biases, further highlighting the presence of inherent bias within LLMs.

We present TransEvalnia, a prompting-based translation evaluation and ranking system that uses reasoning in performing its evaluations and ranking. This system presents fine-grained evaluations based on a subset of the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (https://themqm.org/), returns an assessment of which translation it deems the best, and provides numerical scores for the various dimensions and for the overall translation. We show that TransEvalnia performs as well as or better than the state-of-the-art MT-Ranker (Moosa et al. 2024) on our own English-Japanese data as well as several language pairs from various WMT shared tasks. Using Anthropic's Claude-3.5-Sonnet and Qwen-2.5-72B-Instruct as the evaluation LLMs, we show that the evaluations returned are deemed highly acceptable to human raters, and that the scores assigned to the translations by Sonnet, as well as other LLMs, correlate well with scores assigned by the human raters. We also note the sensitivity of our system -- as well as MT-Ranker -- to the order in which the translations are presented, and we propose methods to address this position bias. All data, including the system's evaluation and reasoning, human assessments, as well as code is released.

Recommender systems widely use implicit feedback such as click data because of its general availability. Although the presence of clicks signals the users' preference to some extent, the lack of such clicks does not necessarily indicate a negative response from the users, as it is possible that the users were not exposed to the items (positive-unlabeled problem). This leads to a difficulty in predicting the users' preferences from implicit feedback. Previous studies addressed the positive-unlabeled problem by uniformly upweighting the loss for the positive feedback data or estimating the confidence of each data having relevance information via the EM-algorithm. However, these methods failed to address the missing-not-at-random problem in which popular or frequently recommended items are more likely to be clicked than other items even if a user does not have a considerable interest in them. To overcome these limitations, we first define an ideal loss function to be optimized to realize recommendations that maximize the relevance and propose an unbiased estimator for the ideal loss. Subsequently, we analyze the variance of the proposed unbiased estimator and further propose a clipped estimator that includes the unbiased estimator as a special case. We demonstrate that the clipped estimator is expected to improve the performance of the recommender system, by considering the bias-variance trade-off. We conduct semi-synthetic and real-world experiments and demonstrate that the proposed method largely outperforms the baselines. In particular, the proposed method works better for rare items that are less frequently observed in the training data. The findings indicate that the proposed method can better achieve the objective of recommending items with the highest relevance.

Modern ML systems ingest data aggregated from diverse sources, such as synthetic, human-annotated, and live customer traffic. Understanding which examples are important to the performance of a learning algorithm is crucial for efficient model training. Recently, a growing body of literature has given rise to various "influence scores," which use training artifacts such as model confidence or checkpointed gradients to identify important subsets of data. However, these methods have primarily been developed in computer vision settings, and it remains unclear how well they generalize to language-based tasks using pretrained models. In this paper, we explore the applicability of influence scores in language classification tasks. We evaluate a diverse subset of these scores on the SNLI dataset by quantifying accuracy changes in response to pruning training data through random and influence-score-based sampling. We then stress-test one of the scores -- "variance of gradients" (VoG) from Agarwal et al. (2022) -- in an NLU model stack that was exposed to dynamic user speech patterns in a voice assistant type of setting. Our experiments demonstrate that in many cases, encoder-based language models can be finetuned on roughly 50% of the original data without degradation in performance metrics. Along the way, we summarize lessons learned from applying out-of-the-box implementations of influence scores, quantify the effects of noisy and class-imbalanced data, and offer recommendations on score-based sampling for better accuracy and training efficiency.

Various design settings for in-context learning (ICL), such as the choice and order of the in-context examples, can bias a model toward a particular prediction without being reflective of an understanding of the task. While many studies discuss these design choices, there have been few systematic investigations into categorizing them and mitigating their impact. In this work, we define a typology for three types of label biases in ICL for text classification: vanilla-label bias, context-label bias, and domain-label bias (which we conceptualize and detect for the first time). Our analysis demonstrates that prior label bias calibration methods fall short of addressing all three types of biases. Specifically, domain-label bias restricts LLMs to random-level performance on many tasks regardless of the choice of in-context examples. To mitigate the effect of these biases, we propose a simple bias calibration method that estimates a language model's label bias using random in-domain words from the task corpus. After controlling for this estimated bias when making predictions, our novel domain-context calibration significantly improves the ICL performance of GPT-J and GPT-3 on a wide range of tasks. The gain is substantial on tasks with large domain-label bias (up to 37% in Macro-F1). Furthermore, our results generalize to models with different scales, pretraining methods, and manually-designed task instructions, showing the prevalence of label biases in ICL.

Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit bias in a variety of ways. Such biases can create or exacerbate unfair outcomes for certain groups within a protected attribute, including, but not limited to sex, race, sexual orientation, or age. In this paper, we propose a decision framework that allows practitioners to determine which bias and fairness metrics to use for a specific LLM use case. To establish the framework, we define bias and fairness risks for LLMs, map those risks to a taxonomy of LLM use cases, and then define various metrics to assess each type of risk. Instead of focusing solely on the model itself, we account for both prompt-specific- and model-specific-risk by defining evaluations at the level of an LLM use case, characterized by a model and a population of prompts. Furthermore, because all of the evaluation metrics are calculated solely using the LLM output, our proposed framework is highly practical and easily actionable for practitioners. For streamlined implementation, all evaluation metrics included in the framework are offered in this paper's companion Python toolkit, LangFair. Finally, our experiments demonstrate substantial variation in bias and fairness across use cases, underscoring the importance of use-case-level assessments.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. Therefore, we identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM-which systematically quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge by using automated and principle-guided modification. Our experiments cover multiple popular language models, and the results indicate that while advanced models have achieved commendable overall performance, significant biases persist in certain specific tasks. Empirical results suggest that there remains room for improvement in the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge. Moreover, we also discuss the explicit and implicit influence of these biases and give some suggestions for the reliable application of LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.

As deep neural networks become adopted in high-stakes domains, it is crucial to be able to identify when inference inputs are Out-of-Distribution (OOD) so that users can be alerted of likely drops in performance and calibration despite high confidence. Among many others, existing methods use the following two scores to do so without training on any apriori OOD examples: a learned temperature and an energy score. In this paper we introduce Ablated Learned Temperature Energy (or "AbeT" for short), a method which combines these prior methods in novel ways with effective modifications. Due to these contributions, AbeT lowers the False Positive Rate at 95% True Positive Rate (FPR@95) by 35.39% in classification (averaged across all ID and OOD datasets measured) compared to state of the art without training networks in multiple stages or requiring hyperparameters or test-time backward passes. We additionally provide empirical insights as to how our model learns to distinguish between In-Distribution (ID) and OOD samples while only being explicitly trained on ID samples via exposure to misclassified ID examples at training time. Lastly, we show the efficacy of our method in identifying predicted bounding boxes and pixels corresponding to OOD objects in object detection and semantic segmentation, respectively - with an AUROC increase of 5.15% in object detection and both a decrease in FPR@95 of 41.48% and an increase in AUPRC of 34.20% on average in semantic segmentation compared to previous state of the art.

Prompt-based classifiers are an attractive approach for zero-shot classification. However, the precise choice of the prompt template and label words can largely influence performance, with semantically equivalent settings often showing notable performance difference. This discrepancy can be partly attributed to word biases, where the classifier may be biased towards classes. To address this problem, it is possible to optimise classification thresholds on a labelled data set, however, this mitigates some of the advantages of prompt-based classifiers. This paper instead approaches this problem by examining the expected marginal probabilities of the classes. Here, probabilities are reweighted to have a uniform prior over classes, in an unsupervised fashion. Further, we draw a theoretical connection between the class priors and the language models' word prior, and offer the ability to set a threshold in a zero-resource fashion. We show that matching class priors correlates strongly with the oracle upper bound performance and demonstrate large consistent performance gains for prompt settings over a range of NLP tasks.

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than 400 models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only 100 anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman ρgeq 0.9 for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

Sampling proper negatives from a large document pool is vital to effectively train a dense retrieval model. However, existing negative sampling strategies suffer from the uninformative or false negative problem. In this work, we empirically show that according to the measured relevance scores, the negatives ranked around the positives are generally more informative and less likely to be false negatives. Intuitively, these negatives are not too hard (may be false negatives) or too easy (uninformative). They are the ambiguous negatives and need more attention during training. Thus, we propose a simple ambiguous negatives sampling method, SimANS, which incorporates a new sampling probability distribution to sample more ambiguous negatives. Extensive experiments on four public and one industry datasets show the effectiveness of our approach. We made the code and models publicly available in https://github.com/microsoft/SimXNS.

In natural language processing, a recently popular line of work explores how to best report the experimental results of neural networks. One exemplar publication, titled "Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Results," advocates for reporting the expected validation effectiveness of the best-tuned model, with respect to the computational budget. In the present work, we critically examine this paper. As far as statistical generalizability is concerned, we find unspoken pitfalls and caveats with this approach. We analytically show that their estimator is biased and uses error-prone assumptions. We find that the estimator favors negative errors and yields poor bootstrapped confidence intervals. We derive an unbiased alternative and bolster our claims with empirical evidence from statistical simulation. Our codebase is at http://github.com/castorini/meanmax.

Negative bias refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to excessively generate negative responses in binary decision tasks (e.g., yes-no question answering). Previous research has focused on detecting and addressing negative attention heads that induce negative bias. However, the underlying detailed factors influencing negative bias remain underexplored. In this paper, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit format-level negative bias, meaning the prompt format more influences their responses than the semantics of the negative response. For the fine-grained study of the negative bias, we introduce a pipeline for constructing the evaluation set, which systematically categorizes the dataset into three subsets based on the model's parametric knowledge: correct, incorrect, and insufficient relevant knowledge. Through analysis of this evaluation set, we identify a shortcut behavior in which models tend to generate negative responses when they lack sufficient knowledge to answer a yes-no question, leading to negative bias. We further examine how negative bias changes under various prompting scenarios related to parametric knowledge. We observe that providing relevant context and offering an "I don't know" option generally reduces negative bias, whereas chain-of-thought prompting tends to amplify the bias. Finally, we demonstrate that the degree of negative bias can vary depending on the type of prompt, which influences the direction of the response. Our work reveals the various factors that influence negative bias, providing critical insights for mitigating it in LLMs.

Text-to-image (T2I) models can synthesize realistic, prompt-aligned images, yet samples generated for the same prompt often cover only a small subset of visually distinct modes. This limits the diversity of images, and for person-centric prompts, can reflect or amplify demographic skew. We formalize this problem as coverage of a predefined set of semantically specified modes, which we call target-mode coverage. We then propose multi-axis max@K, a group-based reinforcement learning objective for improving such coverage in diffusion-based T2I models. Given a group of samples and one score per target category, multi-axis max@K first takes the maximum score across samples for each category and then sums these category-wise maxima. The resulting credit assignment gives a sample positive weight on a category only when it increases that category's group-wise maximum, allowing different samples to contribute to different categories. We first validate the credit-assignment mechanism on a synthetic mixture and on SD3.5-M using deterministic pixel-based color rewards. We then evaluate the same objective on perceived-appearance fairness. Across three automatic evaluators on held-out prompts, multi-axis max@K improves the Fairness Score by 0.23-0.36 relative to the base model, while maintaining image quality and text alignment.

Mitigating bias in machine learning systems requires refining our understanding of bias propagation pathways: from societal structures to large-scale data to trained models to impact on society. In this work, we focus on one aspect of the problem, namely bias amplification: the tendency of models to amplify the biases present in the data they are trained on. A metric for measuring bias amplification was introduced in the seminal work by Zhao et al. (2017); however, as we demonstrate, this metric suffers from a number of shortcomings including conflating different types of bias amplification and failing to account for varying base rates of protected attributes. We introduce and analyze a new, decoupled metric for measuring bias amplification, BiasAmp_{rightarrow} (Directional Bias Amplification). We thoroughly analyze and discuss both the technical assumptions and normative implications of this metric. We provide suggestions about its measurement by cautioning against predicting sensitive attributes, encouraging the use of confidence intervals due to fluctuations in the fairness of models across runs, and discussing the limitations of what this metric captures. Throughout this paper, we work to provide an interrogative look at the technical measurement of bias amplification, guided by our normative ideas of what we want it to encompass. Code is located at https://github.com/princetonvisualai/directional-bias-amp

Text-to-Image (TTI) models generate images based on text prompts, which often leave certain aspects of the desired image ambiguous. When faced with these ambiguities, TTI models have been shown to exhibit biases in their interpretations. These biases can have societal impacts, e.g., when showing only a certain race for a stated occupation. They can also affect user experience when creating redundancy within a set of generated images instead of spanning diverse possibilities. Here, we introduce MineTheGap - a method for automatically mining prompts that cause a TTI model to generate biased outputs. Our method goes beyond merely detecting bias for a given prompt. Rather, it leverages a genetic algorithm to iteratively refine a pool of prompts, seeking for those that expose biases. This optimization process is driven by a novel bias score, which ranks biases according to their severity, as we validate on a dataset with known biases. For a given prompt, this score is obtained by comparing the distribution of generated images to the distribution of LLM-generated texts that constitute variations on the prompt. Code and examples are available on the project's webpage.

Neural ranking models (NRMs) have become one of the most important techniques in information retrieval (IR). Due to the limitation of relevance labels, the training of NRMs heavily relies on negative sampling over unlabeled data. In general machine learning scenarios, it has shown that training with hard negatives (i.e., samples that are close to positives) could lead to better performance. Surprisingly, we find opposite results from our empirical studies in IR. When sampling top-ranked results (excluding the labeled positives) as negatives from a stronger retriever, the performance of the learned NRM becomes even worse. Based on our investigation, the superficial reason is that there are more false negatives (i.e., unlabeled positives) in the top-ranked results with a stronger retriever, which may hurt the training process; The root is the existence of pooling bias in the dataset constructing process, where annotators only judge and label very few samples selected by some basic retrievers. Therefore, in principle, we can formulate the false negative issue in training NRMs as learning from labeled datasets with pooling bias. To solve this problem, we propose a novel Coupled Estimation Technique (CET) that learns both a relevance model and a selection model simultaneously to correct the pooling bias for training NRMs. Empirical results on three retrieval benchmarks show that NRMs trained with our technique can achieve significant gains on ranking effectiveness against other baseline strategies.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse specialized benchmarks necessitates a shift from fragmented, task-specific metrics to a holistic, competitive ranking system that effectively aggregates performance across multiple ability dimensions. Primarily using static scoring, current evaluation methods are fundamentally limited. They struggle to determine the proper mix ratio across diverse benchmarks, and critically, they fail to capture a model's dynamic competitive fitness or its vulnerability when confronted with sequential, high-stakes tasks. To address this, we introduce the novel Competitive Swiss-System Dynamics (CSD) framework. CSD simulates a multi-round, sequential contest where models are dynamically paired across a curated sequence of benchmarks based on their accumulated win-loss record. And Monte Carlo Simulation (N=100,000 iterations) is used to approximate the statistically robust Expected Win Score (E[S_m]), which eliminates the noise of random pairing and early-round luck. Furthermore, we implement a Failure Sensitivity Analysis by parameterizing the per-round elimination quantity (T_k), which allows us to profile models based on their risk appetite--distinguishing between robust generalists and aggressive specialists. We demonstrate that CSD provides a more nuanced and context-aware ranking than traditional aggregate scoring and static pairwise models, representing a vital step towards risk-informed, next-generation LLM evaluation.

Recent failures such as Google Gemini generating people of color in Nazi-era uniforms illustrate how AI outputs can be factually plausible yet socially harmful. AI models are increasingly evaluated for "fairness," yet existing benchmarks often conflate two fundamentally different dimensions: factual correctness and normative fairness. A model may generate responses that are factually accurate but socially unfair, or conversely, appear fair while distorting factual reality. We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation. We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments. Our queries are constructed from 19 statistics and are grounded in cognitive psychology, drawing on representativeness bias, attribution bias, and ingroup-outgroup bias to explain why models often misalign fact and fairness. Experiments across ten frontier models reveal different levels of fact-fair trade-offs. By reframing fairness evaluation, we provide both a new theoretical lens and a practical benchmark to advance the responsible model assessments. Our test suite is publicly available at https://github.com/uclanlp/Fact-or-Fair.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely deployed in user-facing applications, reaching hundreds of millions worldwide. As they become integrated into everyday tasks, growing reliance on their outputs raises significant concerns. In particular, users may unknowingly be exposed to model-inherent biases that systematically disadvantage or stereotype certain groups. However, existing bias benchmarks continue to rely on templated prompts or restrictive multiple-choice questions that are suggestive, simplistic, and fail to capture the complexity of real-world user interactions. In this work, we address this gap by introducing a counterfactual bias evaluation framework that automatically generates realistic, open-ended questions over sensitive attributes such as sex, race, or religion. By iteratively mutating and selecting bias-inducing questions, our approach systematically explores areas where models are most susceptible to biased behavior. Beyond detecting harmful biases, we also capture distinct response dimensions that are increasingly relevant in user interactions, such as asymmetric refusals and explicit acknowledgment of bias. Leveraging our framework, we construct CAB, a human-verified benchmark spanning diverse topics, designed to enable cross-model comparisons. Using CAB, we analyze a range of LLMs across multiple bias dimensions, revealing nuanced insights into how different models manifest bias. For instance, while GPT-5 outperforms other models, it nonetheless exhibits persistent biases in specific scenarios. These findings underscore the need for continual improvements to ensure fair model behavior.

Learning from human preference has been considered key to aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human values. However, contrary to popular belief, our preliminary study reveals that reward models trained on human preference datasets tend to give higher scores to long off-topic responses than short on-topic ones. Motivated by this observation, we explore a preference-free approach utilizing `relevance' as a key objective for alignment. On our first attempt, we find that the relevance score obtained by a retriever alone is vulnerable to reward hacking, i.e., overoptimizing to undesired shortcuts, when we utilize the score as a reward for reinforcement learning. To mitigate it, we integrate effective inductive biases into the vanilla relevance to regularize each other, resulting in a mixture of reward functions: Regularized Relevance Reward (R^3). R^3 significantly improves performance on preference benchmarks by providing a robust reward signal. Notably, R^3 does not require any human preference datasets (i.e., preference-free), outperforming open-source reward models in improving human preference. Our analysis demonstrates that R^3 has advantages in elevating human preference while minimizing its side effects. Finally, we show the generalizability of R^3, consistently improving instruction-tuned models in various backbones and sizes without additional dataset cost. Our code is available at https://github.com/naver-ai/RRR.

ICC's current ranking system does not adequately account for key contextual factors such as home advantage, toss impact and scheduling imbalances; leading to inconsistencies in team evaluation in Test cricket. This study develops an enhanced rating framework by adapting and enhancing Glicko's model to incorporate these influences alongside Margin of Victory, an important indicator of dominance a contest. This enables a more dynamic and probabilistically grounded assessment of team performance. Using past match data, the model demonstrates improved expected score estimation and predictive accuracy. Robustness of the resulting ratings is demonstrated through bootstrap resampling, confirming stability with respect to match scheduling. Overall, the framework provides a fairer and more statistically consistent approach to ranking Test teams.

Does personalizing what a reader sees pay off, and where does it stop? Using a social web highlighter and a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users, which holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does), we map the shape and limits of personalization across reading altitudes. At the document altitude we give the clean, leakage-free, identity-controlled measurement that prior next-document evaluations could only upper-bound: a person's history identifies which documents in a co-reading neighborhood are theirs, with an own-versus-other gap of +0.169 against community negatives and +0.119 against topic-matched hard negatives (both highly significant); a content-based arm suggests the signal is not purely title-driven but is largely thematic. This is comparable to the span-level selection signal (+0.14) from our prior work: the selection signal is of comparable magnitude across altitudes (+0.12 to +0.17), most of it stable topic preference. At the sentence altitude, a two-stage personalized auto-highlight (an impersonal model proposes candidates, a personal model re-ranks them) does not improve on its impersonal baseline: two off-the-shelf zero-shot LLMs, including a frontier model, predict highlight locations worse than a lead baseline, and personal re-ranking is beaten by the salience order even on the highest-recall candidate pool, so the null is not merely a Stage-1 ceiling artifact. Measurable personalization appears primarily at the selection layer: modest (~+0.13), topic-dominated, with no reliable gain at the salience layer. We also surface a control-in-negatives bias that inflated our document gap to a spurious +0.227 until audited. Going beyond the shared salience layer may be better approached by aggregating individuals than by personalizing them harder.

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

In modern recommendation systems, the standard pipeline involves training machine learning models on historical data to predict user behaviors and improve recommendations continuously. However, these data training loops can introduce interference in A/B tests, where data generated by control and treatment algorithms, potentially with different distributions, are combined. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel approach called weighted training. This approach entails training a model to predict the probability of each data point appearing in either the treatment or control data and subsequently applying weighted losses during model training. We demonstrate that this approach achieves the least variance among all estimators that do not cause shifts in the training distributions. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate the lower bias and variance of our approach compared to other methods.

As generative large language models (LLMs) grow more performant and prevalent, we must develop comprehensive enough tools to measure and improve their fairness. Different prompt-based datasets can be used to measure social bias across multiple text domains and demographic axes, meaning that testing LLMs on more datasets can potentially help us characterize their biases more fully, and better ensure equal and equitable treatment of marginalized demographic groups. In this work, our focus is two-fold: (1) Benchmarking: a comparison of 6 different prompt-based bias and toxicity metrics across 12 demographic axes and 5 families of generative LLMs. Out of those 6 metrics, AdvPromptSet and HolisticBiasR are novel datasets proposed in the paper. The comparison of those benchmarks gives us insights about the bias and toxicity of the compared models. Therefore, we explore the frequency of demographic terms in common LLM pre-training corpora and how this may relate to model biases. (2) Mitigation: we conduct a comprehensive study of how well 3 bias/toxicity mitigation techniques perform across our suite of measurements. ROBBIE aims to provide insights for practitioners while deploying a model, emphasizing the need to not only measure potential harms, but also understand how they arise by characterizing the data, mitigate harms once found, and balance any trade-offs. We open-source our analysis code in hopes of encouraging broader measurements of bias in future LLMs.

Selective Classification, wherein models can reject low-confidence predictions, promises reliable translation of machine-learning based classification systems to real-world scenarios such as clinical diagnostics. While current evaluation of these systems typically assumes fixed working points based on pre-defined rejection thresholds, methodological progress requires benchmarking the general performance of systems akin to the AUROC in standard classification. In this work, we define 5 requirements for multi-threshold metrics in selective classification regarding task alignment, interpretability, and flexibility, and show how current approaches fail to meet them. We propose the Area under the Generalized Risk Coverage curve (AUGRC), which meets all requirements and can be directly interpreted as the average risk of undetected failures. We empirically demonstrate the relevance of AUGRC on a comprehensive benchmark spanning 6 data sets and 13 confidence scoring functions. We find that the proposed metric substantially changes metric rankings on 5 out of the 6 data sets.

Quantile regression is a fundamental problem in statistical learning motivated by a need to quantify uncertainty in predictions, or to model a diverse population without being overly reductive. For instance, epidemiological forecasts, cost estimates, and revenue predictions all benefit from being able to quantify the range of possible values accurately. As such, many models have been developed for this problem over many years of research in statistics, machine learning, and related fields. Rather than proposing yet another (new) algorithm for quantile regression we adopt a meta viewpoint: we investigate methods for aggregating any number of conditional quantile models, in order to improve accuracy and robustness. We consider weighted ensembles where weights may vary over not only individual models, but also over quantile levels, and feature values. All of the models we consider in this paper can be fit using modern deep learning toolkits, and hence are widely accessible (from an implementation point of view) and scalable. To improve the accuracy of the predicted quantiles (or equivalently, prediction intervals), we develop tools for ensuring that quantiles remain monotonically ordered, and apply conformal calibration methods. These can be used without any modification of the original library of base models. We also review some basic theory surrounding quantile aggregation and related scoring rules, and contribute a few new results to this literature (for example, the fact that post sorting or post isotonic regression can only improve the weighted interval score). Finally, we provide an extensive suite of empirical comparisons across 34 data sets from two different benchmark repositories.