Media bias detection is a critical task for ensuring fair and balanced information dissemination, yet existing sentence-level approaches classify each sentence independently, ignoring inter-sentence contextual signals that human annotators naturally exploit. We present \textbf{HierBias}, a hierarchical context-conditioned media bias detector that formally models document context in bias prediction. We introduce the \emph{context-conditioned bias probability} and prove theoretically that leveraging document context strictly reduces the Bayes error of sentence-level classification when inter-sentence mutual information is non-zero. A multi-task generalization bound further establishes that jointly training binary bias detection and fine-grained bias type classification improves sample efficiency on small annotated corpora. Architecturally, HierBias pairs a sentence-level RoBERTa encoder with a cross-sentence Transformer aggregator and dual output heads for binary detection and four-class type classification. Evaluated on BABE and BASIL, HierBias achieves 0.853 F1 and 0.723 MCC, surpassing the state-of-the-art bias-detector by +2.6% F1 and +4.3% MCC (McNemar's test, p<0.05). Ablation experiments confirm that each theoretical component contributes independently and consistently.
Detecting media bias automatically is difficult because biased framing is often subtle, yet in domains such as news analysis, accurate predictions alone are insufficient without explanations that reflect the model's underlying reasoning. We present a multi-dimensional evaluation of explainability in encoder-based media bias detection using the Bias Annotations By Experts (BABE) dataset. Specifically, we study BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers (base and large variants) along three complementary axes: predictive performance, explanation plausibility (token-level alignment with expert rationales), and mechanistic faithfulness (whether compact sets of attention heads recover predictive signal under counterfactual rationale masking). To induce variation in plausibility, we additionally investigate attention-supervised finetuning, which incorporates expert rationale annotations as an auxiliary training signal. Attention supervision serves as an intervention on attribution plausibility, while the effectiveness of attribution methods varies substantially across architectures. Circuit analysis further reveals substantial variation in mechanistic recoverability across architectures, suggesting that model scale alone does not determine circuit compressibility. Taken together, our findings suggest that predictive performance, attribution plausibility, and mechanistic faithfulness characterize different aspects of model behavior and should be evaluated separately when studying explainability in media bias detection.
Media bias detection relies on definitions and examples that specify what counts as bias, yet these specifications often vary across datasets or remain implicit, even when given the same name. Such variation makes it unclear whether models trained for the same bias category learn the same construct or different phenomena, a problem largely overlooked in prior work. We examine how definition choice affects bias annotation in a between-subjects experiment with 354 participants and a parallel evaluation with four LLMs. Participants and models rate six news articles across four bias categories using definitions that vary in conceptual framing and elaboration. Across 8,496 human and 28,800 LLM ratings, we find that the conceptual target of a definition drives annotation divergence, while construct-preserving elaboration does not: conceptual framing significantly shifts annotations for humans and does so even more strongly for LLMs. We discuss implications for construct specification in annotation protocols and prompt-based measurement, and consider how definitional sensitivity may propagate to downstream classification beyond media bias. We also release MUDD, the Multi-Definition Bias Detection Dataset.
Bias in natural language remains a persistent challenge in both human-written and AI-generated content, affecting domains such as journalism, education, and AI research. Most existing detection methods identify only the presence of bias, with limited support for granular detection, interpretable explanations, neutral rewriting, and openly available trained models. We present UnBias-Plus, an open-source toolkit unifying (1) segment-level multi-class bias classification, (2) biased span localization, (3) neutral text rewriting, and (4) reasoning for each decision. Available via Python, CLI, REST API, and web interfaces, UnBias-Plus supports accessible bias analysis. The toolkit, source code, models, datasets, and documentation are publicly available.
Ahmed Y. Radwan, Ahmed ElKady, Sindhuja Chaduvula +3