Lost in Translation: Why Lower Bias Scores Don't Mean Fairer Models

How biased is a language model? The answer depends on how you ask. A model that refuses to choose between castes for a leadership role will, in a fill-in-the-blank task, reliably associate upper castes with purity and lower castes with lack of hygiene. Single-task benchmarks miss this because they capture only one slice of a model's bias profile. We introduce a hierarchical taxonomy covering 9 bias types, including under-studied axes like caste, linguistic, and geographic bias, operationalized through 7 evaluation tasks that span explicit decision-making to implicit association. Auditing 7 commercial and open-weight LLMs with \textasciitilde45K prompts, we find three systematic patterns. First, bias is task-dependent: models counter stereotypes on explicit probes but reproduce them on implicit ones, with Stereotype Score divergences up to 0.43 between task types for the same model and identity groups. Second, safety alignment is asymmetric: models refuse to assign negative traits to marginalized groups, but freely associate positive traits with privileged ones. Third, under-studied bias axes show the strongest stereotyping across all models, suggesting alignment effort tracks benchmark coverage rather than harm severity. These results demonstrate that single-benchmark audits systematically mischaracterize LLM bias and that current alignment practices mask representational harm rather than mitigating it.

LLM evaluators (trained reward models and prompted LLM-as-a-Judge) are routinely validated via pairwise accuracy. In a multilingual setting, this operates under the premise that high pairwise accuracy implies reliable, language-neutral scoring. We show that this assumption does not hold. We conduct experiments with semantically identical instruction-response pairs across 23 languages, and find that multilingual evaluators assign significantly different scores to different evaluation languages. The bias is statistically significant and consistent across eight open-weight evaluators of different architectures and training paradigms, persists in frontier judges, and is strongly correlated with language resource level: lower-resource languages are scored more generously. Meanwhile, these biases are invisible to pairwise accuracy: evaluators achieve above 90% pairwise accuracy, yet have up to 43% difference in acceptance rate across languages under a global decision threshold, meaning, for instance, that harmful content in lower-resource languages is more likely to pass safety filters. Per-language thresholds would require language identification, which can be defeated by code-switched prompts. We then investigate why lower-resource languages receive higher rather than lower scores, and we find that model uncertainty is linked with the effect: models tend to give higher scores when less confident, both under negative log-likelihood and under token-free uncertainty measures; however, language identity remains a significant predictor after controlling for uncertainty, and the bias cannot be explained away by content difficulty alone, but is a structural, language-level misalignment.

Language models (LMs) can exhibit biases based on variations in their dialects, even in the absence of a dialect label, a behavior known as covert dialect bias. In this work, we quantify covert dialect bias in online discourse by evaluating how LMs associate stereotypical traits (derived from social psychology research on racial bias) with intent-equivalent tweets in Standard American English (SAE) and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). While prior work shows that LMs associate more negative stereotypes with AAVE when evaluating tweets in isolation, we are surprised to find that this bias is significantly exacerbated when SAE / AAVE tweet pairs are compared side by side, a setting that more closely reflects high-impact decision making contexts in which models are used to rank candidates. The bias only worsens when dialect labels are explicitly specified. This is striking, given the extensive efforts from commercial developers to mitigate bias in their LMs. Encouragingly, we show that counterfactual fairness finetuning can mitigate covert dialect bias for some stereotypical traits, reducing average disparities when evaluating tweets in isolation, however, these improvements do not consistently hold across traits when evaluating SAE / AAVE tweets side by side. Our findings show that existing evaluation settings for covert dialect bias may underestimate its severity, specifically in contrastive settings. Additionally, overt dialect bias remains pronounced even after safety aligned finetuning, indicating that it remains an unresolved problem, and motivates the need for more robust evaluation and mitigation frameworks.