Language Model Bias Evaluation

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance on objective tasks such as video understanding and reasoning. However, it remains unclear whether they can approximate subjective human responses, which depend not only on content comprehension but also on individuals' social contexts. To address this gap, we evaluate MLLMs as synthetic participants in an emerging task: assessing perceived sensory engagement with short videos. Grounded in the Perceived Message Sensation Value (PMSV) framework, we compare ratings from recruited human participants and profile-conditioned MLLM simulations (n=673) using a 17-item scale measuring emotional arousal, dramatic impact, and novelty. We find that even leading MLLMs (Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen 3 Omni) show limited agreement with human participants. The models exhibit distinct downward mean-shift and central-tendency biases in their rating distributions. They both introduce and flatten subgroup differences, while showing inconsistent sensitivity to participant profiles. Prompting strategies affect these metrics differently, modestly improving some aspects while worsening others. These results highlight both the challenges and opportunities of developing MLLMs as synthetic participants in video-based research. Data and code: https://github.com/MINDLab25/mllm-human-simulation-eval

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires, which typically place frontier models on the political left. A parallel literature shows that LLMs are sycophantic: they adapt their answers to the views, identities, and expectations of the user. We show that these findings are linked: standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor. We employ a factorial experiment across three major audit instruments--the Political Compass Test, the Pew Political Typology, and 1,540 partisan-benchmarked Pew American Trends Panel items--administered to six frontier LLMs while varying only the asker's stated identity (N = 30,990 responses). At baseline, all six models lean left. When the asker identifies as a conservative Republican, responses shift sharply: the share of items closer to Democrats falls by 28-62 percentage points, and all six models move right of center. A mirror-image progressive-Democrat cue produces little change; rightward accommodation is 8.0$\times$ larger than leftward. When asked who the default asker is, models identify an auditor, researcher, or academic; when asked what answer that asker expects, they select the Democrat-coded option 75% of the time, nearly the rate under an explicit progressive cue. These patterns are inconsistent with a purely fixed model ideology and indicate that single-prompt audits capture an interaction between model and inferred interlocutor. Political bias in LLMs is therefore not a fixed point on an ideological scale but a response profile that must be mapped across realistic interlocutors.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can strongly shape social discourse, yet datasets investigating how LLM outputs vary across controlled social and contextual prompting remain sparse. Cognitive Digital Shadows (CDS) is a 190,000-record synthetic corpus supporting analyses of LLM-generated discourse. Each CDS record is generated by one of 19 LLMs, prompted to shadow either a human persona or an AI-assistant role. CDS contains LLM responses on 4 controversial societal topics: vaccines/healthcare, social media disinformation, the gender gap in science, and STEM stereotypes. Persona-conditioned records encode 17 sociodemographic and psychological attributes, providing data linking LLMs' prompts, language, stances and reasoning. Texts are validated for topic anchoring and can support emotional analyses via interpretable NLP (e.g. textual forma mentis networks). CDS is enriched by a pooling platform with user-friendly dashboards, enabling easy, interactive group-level comparisons of emotional and semantic framing across personas, topics and models. The CDS prompting framework supports future audits of LLMs' bias, social sensitivity and alignment.

Large language models process the world's writing systems with radical inequality. We constructed the Digital Script Representation Index (DSRI), a seven-axis measure of digital support, and applied it to the 300 writing systems of the Global Script Database (Fukui, 2026). Only 29 scripts (9.7%) are fully supported by contemporary digital infrastructure; among 158 living scripts, 60 (38.0%) lack complete support. Tokenizer efficiency varies by a factor of 31.7 across 45 scripts measured with parallel text. A serial mediation model -- imperial intervention to speaker population to web corpus to tokenizer efficiency -- is consistent with full mediation, with the direct effect of empire indistinguishable from zero (beta = -0.22, p = 0.39) and structural equation model fit indices indistinguishable from saturation at n = 45; the bias-corrected bootstrap CI grazes zero, and we treat the mediation as suggestive rather than confirmatory. Across four independent LLM families (Claude, GPT-4o, Grok, DeepSeek; 12,000 API calls), base-rate-deviation error patterns converge at Spearman rho = 0.85-0.98 (all p < 0.002). 172 script-feature items are answered identically wrong by all four models; over-attribution outnumbers under-recognition 3.9:1, and "used for religion" alone concentrates 43.6% of convergent errors (enrichment 4.1x). With religion excluded as a sensitivity check, the cross-architecture convergence is preserved (mean rho = 0.87 on nine features) and the over-attribution asymmetry persists at 1.77:1 (n = 97, binomial p = 0.008), indicating multi-channeled rather than single-channeled bias. The findings are consistent with an interpretation in which the structural inequalities historical empires inflicted on script communities persist in contemporary language models through the shared training corpus rather than through any individual model's design choices.

Reward models (RMs) play a central role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, RMs are often sensitive to spurious features such as response length. Existing inference-time approaches for mitigating these biases typically focus exclusively on response length, resulting in performance trade-offs. In this paper, we propose causally motivated intervention for mitigating multiple types of biases in RMs at inference time. Our method first identifies neurons whose activations are strongly correlated with predefined bias attributes, and applies neuron-level intervention that suppresses these signals. We evaluate our method on RM benchmarks and observe reductions in sensitivity to spurious features across diverse bias types, without inducing performance trade-offs. Moreover, when used for preference annotation, small RMs (2B and 7B) with our method, which edits less than 2% of all the neurons in RMs, enable LLMs to improve alignment, achieving performance comparable to that of a state-of-the-art 70B RM on AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. Further analysis reveals that bias signals are primarily encoded by neurons in early layers, shedding light on the internal mechanisms of bias exploitation in RMs.

A predecessor pilot (Cacioli, 2026) found that Llama-3-8B implements prompted sandbagging as positional collapse rather than answer avoidance. However, fixed option ordering in MMLU-Pro left open whether this reflected a model-level position-dominant policy or dataset-level distractor structure. This pre-registered follow-up (3 models, 2,000 MMLU-Pro items, 4 conditions, 24,000 primary trials) added cyclic option-order randomisation as the critical control. The pre-registered item-level same-letter diagnostic did not confirm deterministic position-tracking (same-letter rate 37.3%, below the 50% threshold). However, pre-specified supporting analyses revealed that the response-position distribution under sandbagging was highly stable under complete content rotation (Pearson r = 0.9994; Jensen-Shannon divergence = 0.027, compared to 0.386 between honest and sandbagging conditions). Accuracy spiked to 72.1% when the correct answer coincidentally occupied the preferred position E, and fell to 4.3% at position A. The data provide strong evidence for a soft distributional attractor: under sandbagging instruction, the model enters a low-entropy response-position basin centred on E/F/G that is highly stable and largely content-invariant at the aggregate level. Qwen-2.5-7B served as a negative control (non-compliant, no distributional shift). These results provide evidence, at the 7-9 billion parameter scale, that response-position entropy is a promising black-box behavioural signature of this sandbagging mode.

Although the cultural (mis)alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) has attracted increasing attention -- often framed in terms of cultural bias -- until recently there has been limited work on the design and development of datasets for cultural assessment. Here, we review existing approaches to such datasets and identify their main limitations. To address these issues, we propose design guidelines for annotators and report on the construction of a dataset built according to these principles. We further present a series of contrastive experiments conducted with this dataset. The results demonstrate that our design yields test sets with greater discriminative power, effectively distinguishing between models specialized for a given culture and those that are not, ceteris paribus.

Among the many challenges hindering the responsible development and deployment of AI, arguably none has faced more intense scrutiny than bias in its various forms. This underscores the widespread concerns across AI researchers that model outputs, e.g., from generative AI, may encode structural distributional imbalances (stemming from training data or model design) that may amplify social inequality or introduce systemic distortions across application domains ranging from biodiversity to disaster mitigation. Yet, relatively little work has investigated the geographical nature of bias or developed measurable benchmarks for what it means for (generative) AI to be unbiased. In this chapter, we investigate this issue through a literature review. As foundation models are reshaping the landscape of bias research, we examine work spanning both the pre-generative AI and generative AI periods. First, we identify a range of geographic biases. These biases span from representation bias in the training data and regional disparities in the factual recall of language models to the tendency of generative AI to over-proportionally favor prototypical places (called defaults). Then, we showcase how recent studies address the latter bias by evaluating geographic diversity in the outputs of generative AI across various cognitive levels, parameter settings, and output modalities.

We investigate linguistic biases in LLM-based restaurant and product recommendations given prompts varying across Southern American English (AE), Indian English (IE), and Code-Switched Hindi-English dialects, using the Yelp Open dataset (Yelp Inc., 2023) and Walmart product reviews dataset (PromptCloud,2020). We add lists of restaurant and product names balanced by cuisine type and product category to the prompts given to the LLM, and we zero-shot prompt the LLMs in a cold-start setting to select the top-20 restaurant and product recommendations from these lists for each of the dialect-varied prompts. We prompt LLMs using different list samples across 20 seeds for better generalization, and aggregate per cuisine-type and per category response counts for each seed, question/prompt, and LLM model. We run mixed-effects regression models for each model family and topic (restaurant/product) with the aggregate response counts as the dependent, and conduct likelihood ratio tests for the fixed effects with post-hoc pairwise testing of estimated marginal means differences, to investigate group-level differences in recommendation counts by model size and dialect type. Results show that dialect plays a role in the type of restaurant selected across the models tested with the mistral-small-3.1 model and both the llama-3.1 family models tested showing more sensitivity to Indian English and Code-Switched prompts. In terms of product recommendations, the llama-3.1-70B-model is particularly sensitive to Code-Switched prompts in four out of seven categories, and more beauty and home category recommendations are seen when using the Indian English and Code-Switched prompts for larger and smaller models, respectively. No broad trends are seen in the model-size based differences, with differing recommendations based on model sizes conditioned by the type of dialect.

Detecting sandbagging--the deliberate underperformance on capability evaluations--is an open problem in AI safety. We tested whether symptom validity testing (SVT) logic from clinical malingering detection could identify sandbagging through below-chance performance (BCB) on forced-choice items. In a pre-registered pilot at the 7-9 billion parameter instruction-tuned scale (3 models, 4 MMLU-Pro domains, 4 conditions, 500 items per cell, 24,000 total trials), the plausibility gate failed. Zero of 12 model-domain cells showed significant below-chance performance under sandbagging instruction. Exploratory analyses revealed three qualitatively distinct failure modes. Qwen-2.5-7B and Phi-3.5-mini largely ignored the sandbagging instruction, with 62-88% response identity with the honest baseline. Llama-3-8B complied substantially but implemented underperformance as a positional heuristic, collapsing its response distribution onto middle-alphabet options (E at 31.8%, F at 26.1%) regardless of where the correct answer fell. This produced accuracy boosts of up to 33 percentage points when the correct answer coincidentally occupied the model's preferred position. An explicit anti-task instruction ("pick the least likely answer") drove two of three models below chance, with accuracy as low as 0.024. The capability for answer-aware avoidance therefore exists but is not activated by "deliberately underperform." BCB did not fail as a logical marker of answer-aware avoidance. It was not observed in this regime because the model showing the largest behavioural shift exhibited behaviour consistent with a position-dominant response policy rather than content-aware answer avoidance. We propose that positional-distribution shift may be a more effective behavioural signature than below-chance accuracy for detecting prompted underperformance at this model scale.

Chart-to-table translation converts chart images into structured tabular data. Accurate translation is crucial for Multimodal Language Model (MLM) to answer complex queries. We observe imbalances in the number of images across different aspects of the y-axis information in public chart datasets. Such imbalances can introduce unintended biases, causing uneven MLM performance. Previous works have not systematically examined these biases. To address this gap, we propose a new framework, FairChart2Table, for analyzing y-axis-related bias on five state-of-the-art models. Key Findings: (1) There are significant y-axis biases related to the digit length of the major tick values, the number of major ticks, the range of values, and the tick value format (e.g., abbreviation or scientific format). (2) The number of legends/entities in chart images impacts MLM performance. (3) Prompting MLM with y-axis information can significantly enhance the performance for some MLMs.

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.

Evaluating nuanced conversational travel recommendations is challenging when human annotations are costly and standard metrics ignore stakeholder-centric goals. We study LLMs-as-Judges for sustainable city-trip lists across four dimensions -- relevance, diversity, sustainability, and popularity balance, and propose a three-phase calibration framework: (1) baseline judging with multiple LLMs, (2) expert evaluation to identify systematic misalignment, and (3) dimension-specific calibration via rules and few-shot examples. Across two recommendation settings, we observe model-specific biases and high dimension-level variance, even when judges agree on overall rankings. Calibration clarifies reasoning per dimension but exposes divergent interpretations of sustainability, highlighting the need for transparent, bias-aware LLM evaluation. Prompts and code are released for reproducibility: https://github.com/ashmibanerjee/trs-llm-calibration.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in persona-driven applications such as education, customer service, and social platforms, where models are prompted to adopt specific personas when interacting with users. While persona conditioning can improve user experience and engagement, it also raises concerns about how personality cues may interact with gender biases and stereotypes. In this work, we present a controlled study of persona-conditioned story generation in English and Hindi, where each story portrays a working professional in India producing context-specific artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, reports, letters) under systematically varied persona gender, occupational role, and personality traits from the HEXACO and Dark Triad frameworks. Across 23,400 generated stories from six state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that personality traits are significantly associated with both the magnitude and direction of gender bias. In particular, Dark Triad personality traits are consistently associated with higher gender-stereotypical representations compared to socially desirable HEXACO traits, though these associations vary across models and languages. Our findings demonstrate that gender bias in LLMs is not static but context-dependent. This suggests that persona-conditioned systems used in real-world applications may introduce uneven representational harms, reinforcing gender stereotypes in generated educational, professional, or social content.

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant paradigm for evaluating language model outputs, yet LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that compromise evaluation reliability. We present a comprehensive empirical study comparing nine debiasing strategies across five judge models from four provider families (Google, Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta), three benchmarks (MT-Bench n=400, LLMBar n=200, custom n=375), and four bias types. Our headline practical finding is that a mid-tier model with the right debiasing can outperform frontier judges at a fraction of the cost: Gemini 2.5 Flash with the Combined Budget strategy reaches the highest agreement of any configuration we tested (71.0%, kappa=0.549) at ~$0.001 per evaluation, about 15x cheaper than the best frontier setup (Claude Sonnet 4, 69.5$0.015). Other key findings: (1) Style bias is the dominant bias (0.10-0.76 across models, favoring markdown over plain prose), far exceeding position bias (<=0.04), yet is rarely studied. (2) Verbosity bias is heterogeneous when measured length-aware: Pro, Flash, and Llama prefer longer answers (+0.24 to +0.44), Claude prefers concise (-0.12), and GPT-4o is neutral (-0.04); on truncation controls all models correctly prefer the complete response (0.88-1.00 accuracy). (3) Debiasing helps multiple models: Claude S8 (+11.5 pp), Flash S8 (+7.5 pp), and Claude S5 (+7.3 pp) survive Holm-Bonferroni correction, with Flash S1 (+4.7 pp) and Llama S8 (+4.5 pp) also significant. We release our evaluation framework, the 375-pair controlled dataset, and per-instance cached results for all nine strategies.

The TRUST democratic discourse analysis pipeline exposes its large language model (LLM) components to peer model identity through multiple structural channels -- a design feature whose bias implications have not previously been empirically tested. We provide the first systematic measurement of identity-dependent scoring bias across all active identity exposure channels in TRUST, crossing four model families with two anonymization scopes across 30 political statements. The central finding is that single-channel anonymization produces near-zero bias effects, because individual channels act in opposite directions and cancel each other out -- a result that would lead an evaluator to conclude that identity bias is absent when it is not. Only full-pipeline anonymization reveals the true pattern: homogeneous ensembles amplify identity-driven sycophancy when model identity is fully visible, while the heterogeneous production configuration shows the reverse. Model choice matters independently: one tested model exhibits baseline sycophancy two to three times higher than the others and near-zero deliberative conflict on ideological topics, making it structurally unsuitable for pipelines where genuine inter-role disagreement is the intended quality mechanism. Three practical conclusions follow. First, heterogeneous model ensembles are structurally more robust than homogeneous ones, achieving higher consensus rates and lower identity amplification. Second, full-pipeline anonymization is required for valid bias measurement -- partial anonymization is insufficient and actively misleading. Third, these findings have direct implications for the validation of multi-agent LLM systems in quality-critical applications: a system validated under partial anonymization or with a homogeneous ensemble may pass validation while retaining structural identity bias invisible to single-channel measurement.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for text generation tasks from everyday use to high-stakes enterprise and government applications, including simulated interviews with asylum seekers. While many works highlight the new potential applications of LLMs, there are risks of LLMs encoding and perpetuating harmful biases about non-dominant communities across the globe. To better evaluate and mitigate such harms, more research examining how LLMs portray diverse individuals is needed. In this work, we study how national origin identities are portrayed by widely-adopted LLMs in response to open-ended narrative generation prompts. Our findings demonstrate the presence of persistent representational harms by national origin, including harmful stereotypes, erasure, and one-dimensional portrayals of Global Majority identities. Minoritized national identities are simultaneously underrepresented in power-neutral stories and overrepresented in subordinated character portrayals, which are over fifty times more likely to appear than dominant portrayals. The degree of harm is amplified when US nationality cues (e.g., ``American'') are present in input prompts. Notably, we find that the harms we identify cannot be explained away via sycophancy, as US-centric biases persist even when replacing US nationality cues with non-US national identities in the prompts. Based on our findings, we call for further exploration of cultural harms in LLMs through methodologies that center Global Majority perspectives and challenge the uncritical adoption of US-based LLMs for the classification, surveillance, and misrepresentation of the majority of our planet.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit representational and syntactic biases that are difficult to evaluate due to the stochastic nature of text generation. Standard auditing methods rely on a single output inspection or static automated metrics. These approaches obscure the underlying probability distributions and fail to capture biases hidden in lower-probability generation branches. This paper introduces TreeTracer, a visual analytics tool designed to evaluate LLM bias through aggregated comparison. Using a systematic perturbation analysis pipeline, the tool replaces ontology-defined terms in each input prompt, aggregates hundreds of stochastic generations into a syntax-aligned hierarchical structure, and then performs classification-aware node merging with an auxiliary language model. The resulting structure is visualized through a custom Sankey diagram. By juxtaposing two ontology-driven trees, the workspace enables direct comparison between semantic contexts and supports systematic bias detection. Because any visualization reflects only a subset of the model's learned behavior, the system further applies contrastive inference to compute and directly display counterfactual token probabilities across contexts, reducing the risk of misinterpreting the presence of bias. We validate the workspace through case studies comparing an unaligned baseline model GPT-2 XL against the constitutionally aligned Apertus models. The visual aggregation successfully exposes hidden representational harms, such as counterfactual pronoun suppression and conversational marginalization of individuals. A preliminary user study confirms that the aggregated comparative interface reduces cognitive load and effectively supports analysts in detecting systemic biases.

LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on. However, the scalability and trustworthiness of this approach can be substantially distorted by Self-Preference Bias (SPB), which is a directional evaluative deviation in which LLMs systematically favor or disfavor their own generated outputs during evaluation. Existing measurements rely on costly human annotations and conflate generative capability with evaluative stance, and thus are impractical for large-scale deployment in real-world systems. To address this issue, we introduce a fully automated framework to quantifying and mitigating SPB, which constructs equal-quality pairs of responses with negligible quality differences, enabling statistical disentanglement of discriminability from bias propensity without human gold standards. Empirical analysis across 20 mainstream LLMs reveals that advanced capabilities are often uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with low SPB. To mitigate this bias, we propose a structured multi-dimensional evaluation strategy grounded in cognitive load decomposition, which reduces SPB by 31.5% on average.

When you ask an AI assistant for advice about your career, your marriage, or a conflict with your family, does it give you the same answer regardless of where you are from? We tested this systematically by presenting three leading AI systems (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5.4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash) with ten real-life personal dilemmas, framed for users from 10 countries across 5 continents in 7 languages (n=840 scored responses). We compared AI advice against World Values Survey Wave 7 data measuring what people in each country actually believe. All three AI systems consistently gave Western-style, individualist advice even to users from societies that prioritize family, community, and authority, significantly more so than local values would predict (mean gap +0.76 on a 1-5 scale; t=15.65, p<0.001). The gap is largest for Nigeria (+1.85) and India (+0.82). Japan is the sole exception: AI systems treated Japanese users as more group-oriented than surveys show, revealing that AI encodes outdated stereotypes. Claude and GPT-5.4 show nearly identical bias magnitude, while Gemini is lower but still significant. The models diverge in mechanism: Claude shifts further collectivist in the user's native language; Gemini shifts more individualist; GPT-5.4 responds only to stated country identity. These findings point to a systemic homogenization of values across frontier AI. Data, code, and scoring pipeline are openly released.

Social media platforms have become primary channels for health information in the Global South. Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis of 30 multilingual transcripts showing that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors, creating a rhetorical register that LLMs, trained predominantly on Western corpora, are systematically ill-equipped to analyse. Varying prompt tone across three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1), we find that culturally embedded health misinformation does not look like ordinary misinformation, and this cultural obfuscation extends to gendered rhetoric and prompt design, compounding analytical unreliability. Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.

LLMs have been showing limitations when it comes to cultural coverage and competence, and in some cases show regional biases such as amplifying Western and Anglocentric viewpoints. While there have been works analysing the cultural capabilities of LLMs, there has not been specific work on highlighting LLM regional preferences when it comes to cultural-related questions. In this work, we propose a new dataset based on a comprehensive taxonomy of Culture-Related Open Questions (CROQ). The results show that, contrary to previous cultural bias work, LLMs show a clear tendency towards countries such as Japan. Moveover, our results show that when prompting in languages such as English or other high-resource ones, LLMs tend to provide more diverse outputs and show less inclinations towards answering questions highlighting countries for which the input language is an official language. Finally, we also investigate at which point of LLM training this cultural bias emerges, with our results suggesting that the first clear signs appear after supervised fine-tuning, and not during pre-training.

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic ideological bias when reasoning about economic causal effects? As LLMs are increasingly used in policy analysis and economic reporting, where directionally correct causal judgments are essential, this question has direct practical stakes. We present a systematic evaluation by extending the EconCausal benchmark with ideology-contested cases - instances where intervention-oriented (pro-government) and market-oriented (pro-market) perspectives predict divergent causal signs. From 10,490 causal triplets (treatment-outcome pairs with empirically verified effect directions) derived from top-tier economics and finance journals, we identify 1,056 ideology-contested instances and evaluate 20 state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to predict empirically supported causal directions. We find that ideology-contested items are consistently harder than non-contested ones, and that across 17 of 20 models, accuracy is systematically higher when the empirically verified causal sign aligns with intervention-oriented expectations than with market-oriented ones. Moreover, when models err, their incorrect predictions disproportionately lean intervention-oriented, and this directional skew is not eliminated by one-shot in-context prompting. These results highlight that LLMs are not only less accurate on ideologically contested economic questions, but systematically less reliable in one ideological direction than the other, underscoring the need for direction-aware evaluation in high-stakes economic and policy settings.

Multi-document news summarisation systems are increasingly adopted for their convenience in processing vast daily news content, making fairness across diverse political perspectives critical. However, these systems can exhibit political bias through unequal representation of viewpoints, disproportionate emphasis on certain perspectives, and systematic underrepresentation of minority voices. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of such bias in multi-document news summarisation using FairNews, a dataset of complete news articles with political orientation labels, examining how large language models (LLMs) handle sources with varying political leanings across 13 models and five fairness metrics. We investigate both baseline model performance and effectiveness of various debiasing interventions, including prompt-based and judge-based approaches. Our findings challenge the assumption that larger models yield fairer outputs, as mid-sized variants consistently outperform their larger counterparts, offering the best balance of fairness and efficiency. Prompt-based debiasing proves highly model dependent, while entity sentiment emerges as the most stubborn fairness dimension, resisting all intervention strategies tested. These results demonstrate that fairness in multi-document news summarisation requires multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks and targeted, architecture-aware debiasing rather than simply scaling up.

As state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous, ensuring equitable performance across diverse demographics is critical. However, it remains unclear whether these disparities arise from the explicitly stated identity itself or from the way identity is signaled. In real-world interactions, users' identity is often conveyed implicitly through a complex combination of various socio-linguistic factors. This study disentangles these signals by employing a factorial design with over 24,000 responses from two open-weight LLMs (Gemma-3-12B and Qwen-3-VL-8B), comparing prompts with explicitly announced user profiles against implicit dialect signals (e.g., AAVE, Singlish) across various sensitive domains. Our results uncover a unique paradox in LLM safety where users achieve better'' performance by sounding like a demographic than by stating they belong to it. Explicit identity prompts activate aggressive safety filters, increasing refusal rates and reducing semantic similarity compared to our reference text for Black users. In contrast, implicit dialect cues trigger a powerful dialect jailbreak,'' reducing refusal probability to near zero while simultaneously achieving a greater level of semantic similarity to the reference texts compared to Standard American English prompts. However, this dialect jailbreak'' introduces a critical safety trade-off regarding content sanitization. We find that current safety alignment techniques are brittle and over-indexed on explicit keywords, creating a bifurcated user experience where standard'' users receive cautious, sanitized information while dialect speakers navigate a less sanitized, more raw, and potentially a more hostile information landscape and highlights a fundamental tension in alignment--between equitable and linguistic diversity--and underscores the need for safety mechanisms that generalize beyond explicit cues.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive settings, raising concerns about fairness and biases, particularly across intersectional demographic attributes. In this paper, we systematically evaluate intersectional fairness in six LLMs using ambiguous and disambiguated contexts from two benchmark datasets. We assess LLM behavior using bias scores, subgroup fairness metrics, accuracy, and consistency through multi-run analysis across contexts and negative and non-negative question polarities. Our results show that while modern LLMs generally perform well in ambiguous contexts, this limits the informativeness of fairness metrics due to sparse non-unknown predictions. In disambiguated contexts, LLM accuracy is influenced by stereotype alignment, with models being more accurate when the correct answer reinforces a stereotype than when it contradicts it. This pattern is especially pronounced in race-gender intersections, where directional bias toward stereotypes is stronger. Subgroup fairness metrics further indicate that, despite low observed disparity in some cases, outcome distributions remain uneven across intersectional groups. Across repeated runs, responses also vary in consistency, including stereotype-aligned responses. Overall, our findings show that apparent model competence is partly associated with stereotype-consistent cues, and no evaluated LLM achieves consistently reliable or fair behavior across intersectional settings. These findings highlight the need for evaluation beyond accuracy, emphasizing the importance of combining bias, subgroup fairness, and consistency metrics across intersectional groups, contexts, and repeated runs.

Research has documented LLMs' name-based bias in hiring and salary recommendations. In this paper, we instead consider a setting where LLMs generate candidate summaries for downstream assessment. In a large-scale controlled study, we analyze nearly one million resume summaries produced by 4 models under systematic race-gender name perturbations, using synthetic resumes and real-world job postings. By decomposing each summary into resume-grounded factual content and evaluative framing, we find that factual content remains largely stable, while evaluative language exhibits subtle name-conditioned variation concentrated in the extremes of the distribution, especially in open-source models. Our hiring simulation demonstrates how evaluative summary transforms directional harm into symmetric instability that might evade conventional fairness audit, highlighting a potential pathway for LLM-to-LLM automation bias.

LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ conversational behavior rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks. We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable: surface-level prompt construction choices, although entirely orthogonal to the fairness question being tested, account for the majority of score variance, shift fairness conclusions in both the direction and the magnitude, and result in severe discordance in model rankings. We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue for in-situ behavior evaluation, examining how models' conversational behavior shifts when identity is varied as part of natural multi-agent interaction. Repurposing standardized-test questions as conversation seeds rather than as the evaluation instrument, we evaluate position persistence (how they hold positions, from the self-perspective) and peer receptiveness (how receptive they are to peers, from the other-perspective) across 8 million conversation transcripts spanning multiple models and identity presence configurations. In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies, a form of evidence the standardized-test paradigm does not offer.

RLHF-trained models are systematically biased toward agreement over accuracy, a structural property of the training process. We present Durable Evaluation Framework (DEF) Arbitration, a multi-agent architecture that mitigates identity-framed sycophancy by arbitrating between two models tuned to opposing DEFs, with a pragmatist synthesizer evaluating both arguments blind to their origins. This paper evaluates a prompt-based instantiation of DEF Arbitration. The key mechanisms are static DEF tuning, identity stripping before synthesis, single-round independent argumentation, and blind arbitration. We evaluate five instantiations on 200 stratified questions from SycophancyEval. All tested DEF variants (AnCifer, DeWin, FeynStein, BurGal, Trident) significantly outperform the single-model baseline (18.5%) and instructed-opposition baseline (29.0%), with DeWin achieving 48.5% accuracy (z=6.36, p<0.001 versus both). The variants are not significantly different from each other at n=200. The BurGal variant achieves 53.0% but functions as an architectural validity check; its consensus/heterodox axis structurally favors the heterodox model on every benchmark question. A pre-training floor affects an estimated 40% of questions; fine-tuned DEF models are the identified next step.