Language Model Bias Evaluation

Gender bias in LLMs has been studied extensively in model outputs, with biased prompts shown to amplify stereotyped generations. Whether such bias propagates into text produced by humans who use these systems, however, remains underexplored. We investigate whether gender bias in an LLM writing assistant transfers into career plan essays written by students. We first verify that a gender-biased prompt induces gender-differentiated language in LLM-generated essays, while a neutral prompt does not. We then recruited participants (N = 123) in a controlled environment to write career plan essays for paired biographical profiles differing only in gender under three conditions: no AI assistance, neutral LLM assistance, or gender-biased LLM assistance. Students in the biased condition produced essays with a significantly larger agentic gap and more gender-stereotypic occupation suggestions than those in the control and neutral conditions. Our results also reveal that this bias transfer is asymmetric: agency is suppressed in female-target essays while male-target writing remains largely unaffected. Our findings highlight the risk of bias propagation in AI-assisted writing, calling for fairness-aware design in educational AI tools.

LLM-as-a-judge systems are now routinely used for open-ended model evaluation, where human preference annotation is costly, slow, and difficult to reproduce. Yet these judges are often reported as scalar accuracy, win-rate, or agreement devices. We argue that a judge should instead be reported as a measurement instrument. We introduce a Judge Datasheet protocol that measures dark current under true-vacuum inputs, stable cross-sensitivity to same-quality surface variation, positional false preference, target sensitivity on a controlled quality ladder, and the criterion or operating point induced by tie instructions. The direction-stability decomposition reveals that apparent Delta0 preference can be stable surface response or disguised position bias. In a three-judge open-weight case study, Llama-3.1-8B shows high dark current and presentation-conflicted Delta0 behavior, Qwen2.5-14B is vacuum-clean and target-sensitive but mixes stable and positional over-discrimination, and Qwen2.5-32B is vacuum-clean with low stable cross-sensitivity and low positional false preference. A strict tie criterion eliminates Qwen32B Delta0 false preference but absorbs marginal Delta1 target signals into ties while preserving Delta5 sensitivity. The results show that prompting moves the criterion, not the resolution. We do not claim that the downstream mechanism hypothesis that motivated this work is confirmed; the contribution is a metrological protocol for measuring the measuring device before downstream claims are made.

Large language models are increasingly deployed for written pronunciation feedback in second-language (L2) English learning, under the assumption that their diagnoses are grounded in the supplied speech evidence rather than in priors from pretraining. This assumption is tested on 1,800 L2-Arctic utterances spanning six L1 backgrounds, three audio-capable LLMs, four pronunciation dimensions, and five evidence conditions ranging from a text-only baseline to numeric acoustic features and raw audio. Each (utterance x model x condition x dimension) cell is scored on three metrics: Rating Accuracy (RA) against gold labels, Evidence Coherence (EC) assessing internal consistency without ground truth, and Grounded Correctness (GC) evaluated against gold evidence. Results show three findings across models. First, rating accuracy and grounded reasoning decouple: 39.6% of judged cells contain internally coherent reasoning that supports a wrong rating, against only 15.8% where the reasoning supports a correct rating. Second, phoneme-level feedback converges to a fixed inventory of L2-English difficulty phones that recurs across all six L1 backgrounds and all evidence conditions. Third, acoustic evidence improves the rating only when the supplied feature directly probes the target dimension: textualised F0 range raises pitch-variation grounding from (0.18-0.19) to (0.45-0.62) across all three models, while stress and phoneme correctness, which require target-to-realisation alignment, remain ungrounded. The same audio waveform without textualised F0 values does not reproduce this improvement. These findings indicate that current general-purpose LLMs are more reliable as verbalisers of externally computed pronunciation evidence than as standalone diagnostic engines.

Socio-cultural stereotypical bias is an important consideration in the development and deployment of NLP systems. It is however often considered only at the national level, despite rich subnational socio-cultural structures. We present AmchiBias, the first benchmark for measuring socio-cultural stereotypical bias for the Indian state of Goa with its unique historically multicultural setting. It covers various Goan identity groups and comprises 313 minimal pairs across eight sociodemographic dimensions in both English and Devanagari Konkani. We then evaluate stereotypical bias in five multilingual encoder models on this benchmark. We find near-chance scores in Konkani, reflecting language incompetence for general multilingual models and a lack of Goan cultural competence for Indian language models. Queried in English, models with a stronger Indian language coverage show higher bias for pan-Indian groups than hyperlocal Goan groups. This suggests the English signal reflects pan-Indian pretraining associations rather than genuine Goan cultural knowledge. Our findings highlight a critical gap in low-resource multilingual NLP evaluation for hyperlocal community identities.

Reasoning models are increasingly used in settings where the final answer is not the only object of review: educational tools may show students intermediate steps, decision-support systems may require human oversight, and audit workflows may inspect traces for misleading or biased input. In such settings, two responses can receive the same final-answer score while differing in whether the trace explicitly flags injected biasing content. Accuracy-only evaluation collapses these cases. We study this gap as a measurement blind spot for responsible evaluation and introduce a minimal trace-level diagnostic with two axes: \emph{susceptibility} (whether the bias breaks a previously correct answer) and \emph{acknowledgment} (whether the trace contains a rubric-defined surface reference to the injected content). Across thousands of biased GSM8K trials, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet~4 have similar susceptibility rates ($1.3\%$ vs. $1.2\%$) but substantially different acknowledgment rates ($13.0\%$ vs. $75.0\%$) under the same rubric.

The global use of artificial intelligence has increased interest in assessing the ability to generate culturally localized content, including stories. Cultural localization in stories often occurs through either templated localization -- the use of cultural markers (e.g., names, locations) in a generic narrative -- or holistic localization -- the variation of plots, values, and themes, in addition to cultural markers. We propose a method to measure the degree to which content was generated through templated localization. Specifically, we identify the lexical tokens that distinguish stories across nationalities and measure the similarity of the narratives that remain after removing them. In stories generated by five models on 125 topics for 193 nationalities, our method is able to detect that only a small subset (9-17%) of the vocabulary accounts for the variation across nationalities and that the narratives that remain after removing them contain repeated multi-word sequences, suggesting the presence of a shared culturally-agnostic narrative template. Finally, we characterize the cultural markers for their stereotypicality and offensiveness, finding that markers from 19 countries, mostly located in the Global South, are on average offensive.

Transformer-based clinical language models are increasingly integrated into high-stakes clinical decision support pipelines, yet the computational mechanisms through which demographic associations encoded in medical documentation propagate into model probability distributions remain empirically underspecified. We present a systematic computational audit of representational bias in ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019), a BERT-based model pretrained on MIMIC-III discharge summaries, employing two complementary probing methodologies: Log Probability Bias Analysis (LPBA), which quantifies demographic descriptor-induced shifts in masked token probability distributions across behavioral and evaluative semantic categories, and Masked Language Model-based analysis (MLM), which probes internal representational structure for demographic agency attribution encoding across 98 real clinical sentence templates and eight intersectional race-gender combinations. Corpus frequency analysis operationalizes the distinction between statistical disparity and bias amplification by benchmarking model outputs against empirical term frequencies in the MIMIC-III training corpus. Of 32 statistically significant findings, 65.6% contradict observed corpus distributions, rising to 80% for Black patients and 87.5% for agency attribution under MLM probing, providing direct empirical evidence that representational bias in ClinicalBERT operates predominantly through model-internal amplification rather than training data inheritance. Keywords: natural language processing, clinical documentation, algorithmic auditing, representational bias, health equity 1

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for bias using adaptations of human psychological paradigms, yet methodological limitations-particularly the conflation of refusal behavior with task performance-have hindered clear interpretation. Here, we adapt the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to a controlled, forced-choice framework and introduce a two-stage modeling approach that separates response compliance from task-consistent classification. Across three contemporary LLMs (Claude Sonnet-4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-5), we evaluate associative interference, defined as reduced task-consistency in incongruent relative to congruent conditions. While compliance with the structured response format was uniformly high, interference effects varied substantially across models and domains. Claude Sonnet-4 exhibited strong interference in the Gender--Career domain (DeltaP = 0.086, 95% CrI [0.026, 0.173]) and smaller but credible effects in Gender--Science. Gemini 2.5 Pro showed attenuated interference, and GPT-5 exhibited minimal or no detectable interference across domains. These findings demonstrate that IAT-style associative asymmetries are not a universal property of LLMs, but instead depend on model-specific characteristics. By isolating interference from compliance and modeling item-level variability, this study provides a principled framework for evaluating structured response patterns in LLMs. The results highlight the importance of model-specific assessment and suggest that associative interference can be substantially mitigated in modern systems.

Existing studies on gender bias in LLMs have largely focused on stereotypes, occupational associations, or explicit harmful outputs. In this work, we ask whether LLMs apply consistent response standards to the same negative behavior under matched male-actor and female-actor conditions. We introduce GAMA-Bench, a gender-mirrored benchmark of 1,298 scenarios covering intimate relationship and public social conflicts. It constructs gender-neutral misconduct templates through controlled grids and cross-model review, then compiles them into paired first-person prompts with matched actor-gender and role-reference variations. We further design a structured response-framing protocol to measure how models allocate punishment, empathy, escalation, instruction, and blame. Experiments on 10 representative LLMs reveal a consistent male-disadvantaging asymmetry: male actors receive more punitive, escalatory, and blame-centered framing, whereas female actors receive more therapeutic and empathy-oriented framing for the same misconduct. Further analyses show that this pattern persists across model families, scenario tracks, model scale, and explicit thinking-style reasoning. The official code is available at https://github.com/xufeiqiong/GAMA-Bench.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly characterised in recent evaluation work as having stable, model-level preference and value systems. However, accompanying robustness checks are limited to incidental prompt perturbations such as syntax variation and option reordering. This leaves open whether the measured properties survive when the surrounding task context changes, as it does in most real deployments. We test this directly across two established pairwise paradigms: ranking country preferences and eliciting utility judgements. In both, we make the deployment context -- the high-level task the model is performing while making concrete value-dependent choices -- our controlled variable, varied across framings such as writing a Reddit post or a news article. Across five LLMs and over 1.2M pairwise decisions, deployment context produces variation far larger than prompt paraphrasing and temperature controls. In country preference rankings over 15 countries, context induces widespread, statistically significant rank shifts; the aggregate Global North favouritism reported in prior work is itself context-dependent, with each model's bias shifting systematically across contexts. In utility elicitation over 50 outcomes, broad cross-category ordering is preserved, but fine-grained rankings within domains vary substantially, and cardinal exchange rates between outcomes (e.g. how many lives in one region equal one in another) shift by a factor of 2.47 at the median. Reported model-level preferences and utilities are therefore better understood as context-conditioned measurements than fixed model-level properties: safety guarantees obtained under one framing provide limited assurance in another.

Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) in medicine are mainly evaluated using multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which can overestimate real clinical ability due to guessing strategies and answer biases. To address these limitations, we introduce an expanded and more challenging benchmark based on Polish medical exams, adding over 15,000 questions, two new domains, and four structural modifications that reduce MCQA-specific artifacts and better test reasoning. We evaluate 21 LLMs and show that evaluation design strongly affects results. Under our harder setup, the best model (Qwen3.5-122B) drops by 28.4 and 31 pp on English and Polish exams, respectively. Despite low evidence of data contamination, standard MCQA scores do not reliably reflect true medical competence. To facilitate further research, we make our benchmark publicly available.

Research on bias in large language models (LLMs) has predominantly focused on third-person audits, which study how models represent or evaluate demographic groups as external subjects. However, this paradigm overlooks a structural blind spot because the user is absent from the audit. In practice, LLMs are used in open-ended, personal interactions, during which the model implicitly represents the user and adjusts its responses accordingly. When identical requests yield different responses depending on who is asking, bias manifests not in how the model describes others but in how it treats its interlocutor. We propose Situated Interaction Auditing (SIA), a user-centered framework for studying how user profile signals -- implicit sociodemographic markers, writing style, and stated identity -- systematically shape LLM response quality, content, and tone. We demonstrate the framework through a case study that intersects gender and socioeconomic status signals across multiple task domains and outline a research agenda for SIA as a new mission for natural language processing.

The deployment of LLM-based agents in scientific analysis raises opposing concerns: that agents may reduce methodological diversity, or that they may amplify the analytic flexibility through which researchers reach motivated conclusions. We argue these worries target two empirically separable layers: a design layer of methodological choices, and a verdict layer in which a decision rule maps estimates to a substantive claim. We test both by running 20 independent executions of Claude Code and Codex on a prominent immigration and social-policy against a many-analysts human baseline. At the design layer, Codex matches human methodological diversity and Claude Code produces nearly three times as many specifications; both agents' effect estimates remain broadly aligned with the human consensus, and no agent model exactly matches any human model. A prompt-induced anti-immigration researcher prior reorganizes each agent's methodological decisions but, unlike for biased human analysts in the same data, does not shift aggregate estimates or final verdicts; nor do agents reroute along the methodological axes humans use to bias their estimates. At the verdict layer, an explicit confirmatory prompt flips Claude Code's verdicts from 10% to 90% support while leaving its coefficient distribution essentially unchanged, operating through rule omission rather than rule softening. AI agents can rival or exceed human methodological diversity at the design layer while remaining vulnerable at the verdict layer. In our setting, the locus of AI bias is not estimation but interpretation.

Personalized persuasive text generation can improve relevance and engagement, but demographic conditioning may also introduce unequal framing across groups. We study fairness mitigation in personalized generation as a constrained multi-objective alignment problem: reduce demographic disparities while preserving personalization fidelity. We propose a Pareto-guided teacher alignment framework that combines revision-based candidate generation, pair-aware feasibility gating, Pareto-style candidate selection, and optional preference optimization through supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization. We evaluate the framework on climate change and vaccination persuasion tasks using a controlled context-rich demographic grid with matched gender and age pairs and a unified five-audit evaluation suite spanning persuasion bias, formality disparity, emotional framing disparity, lexical association disparity, and personalization fidelity. Across both domains and cross-family transfer settings, no single alignment strategy dominates all objectives simultaneously. Instead, methods occupy different regions of a fairness-personalization Pareto frontier: some achieve stronger disparity reductions, while others better preserve personalization or demographic stability. Our results show that fairness mitigation effects are objective-dependent and transfer inconsistently across domains and model families, motivating bounded-regression, multi-audit model selection over single-metric optimization for fairness-sensitive personalized generation.

This paper revisits our pipeline called Syllogistic Evaluation Framework-Common Logic Grammar Construction (SEF-CLGC). We combine formal logical notations with Small Language Models (SLMs) to evaluate reasoning performance on the SemEval-2026 Task 11 Subtask 1: Disentangling Content and Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models. Our experiments show that by relying solely on SLMs, trained on a combination of natural and symbolic languages, our best model achieves a content score of 27.80% on the task while significantly lowering the content bias in reasoning.

As Russia's war against Ukraine extends into generative AI, large language models (LLMs) adapted for local post-Soviet languages are deployed in contested information environments. Policy and industry discourse assumes that culturally aligned adaptation encodes the political orientation of the target community: a Ukrainian-oriented model will resist Russian narratives, a Russian-oriented one will reinforce them. Does it? This article systematically disconfirms that assumption. We run a controlled audit of four openly available LLMs sharing a common base model but fine-tuned for different linguistic communities, querying them in Ukrainian, Russian and English across ten contested wartime narratives: Crimea, "denazification", the "one people" thesis, and atrocity denial at Bucha and Mariupol. The result is a Fine-Tuning Paradox: the Ukrainian-oriented model shows the weakest resistance to Russian disinformation in Russian, while the Russian-oriented one exhibits the strongest rejection. Corpus composition, language coverage and prompt format prove more decisive than nominal cultural provenance. We situate these findings within debates on hybrid warfare, digital sovereignty and post-imperial information orders, arguing that the principal threat to regional information sovereignty is not adversarial fine-tuning but the untested assumption that cultural alignment guarantees resilience.

Gender bias in AI-generated stories is a well-documented problem. While much attention has been paid to reducing or mitigating this bias, it is not always clear whether interventions produce genuinely fairer results. To investigate this issue, we examine how large language models (LLMs) handle gender assignment in a narrative context that is popular, highly ambiguous, and also known to closely reproduce human stereotypes: stories about talking animals. We prompt six leading LLMs to complete an English-language story about seven different anthropomorphic animal characters whose gender is unstated. We additionally iterate with four different narrative settings and a range of model temperatures. Across the 23.8K stories, we find that models frequently avoid gendering the animal character in the story (19% on average) or use gender-neutral language like "it" or "its" (38.2% on average). However, when gender is assigned, there is a significant masculine bias. Feminine animal characters are virtually absent, present in just 2.2% of stories vs. 40.6% that feature masculine characters. Our findings point to a broader argument: neutrality bites. In other words, models that prioritize neutrality to address social bias may actually contribute to the erasure of marginalized perspectives and identities. We suggest that alternative strategies beyond neutrality need to be pursued, such as ones that more equally distribute social possibilities across imagined subjects.

Humans increasingly turn to Language Models (LMs) in ways that shape beliefs and drive decisions, including discussing, rewriting, and summarizing information from scientific articles, news, and medical reports. However, in these domains, where it often matters how confidently a claim is expressed, little is known about whether LMs faithfully preserve the degree of confidence. In this work, we investigate certainty distortion in LMs, defined as meaningful changes in expressed certainty during transformations intended to preserve meaning. We propose an LM-based evaluation metric that is consistent with population-level judgments of certainty. Using this metric, we characterize certainty distortion across different sizes and families of models in the context of scientific and medical communication tasks. Our results show that certainty distortion affects up to 75% of LM outputs and is systematically asymmetric in rewriting tasks with most LMs being 1.5-2x more likely to increase the expressed certainty than to decrease it. These effects can compound over repeated paraphrasing: in the medical domain, claude-haiku-4.5 increases certainty in 20% of examples after a single iteration, increasing to 40% after five iterations. Prompt-based interventions reduce overall certainty distortion but do not eliminate it. Together, these findings reveal a general bias toward inflating expressed certainty, with direct implications for users who rely on LMs in high-stakes domains.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical practice based on benchmark accuracy that may fail to detect safety-relevant failure modes. Here we present AI-MASLD, a stress-audit framework that adapts the logic of metabolic stress testing from hepatology to the evaluation of clinical LLMs. Using 240 clinical cases across six narrative perturbation probes, we subjected seven models to double-stress testing and quantified performance through three indices: metabolic index (MI), perturbation flip rate (PFR), and counterfactual fairness index (CFI). Under clean baseline conditions, all models performed uniformly well. Under realistic narrative stress, performance diverged sharply, revealing two distinct stress-response phenotypes. Quantized models exhibited pseudonormalization, in which low flip rates hid functional collapse. Medical supervised fine-tuning systematically degraded logical stability, fairness, and information extraction. An open-weight model matched or exceeded proprietary alternatives on every safety dimension. These findings establish narrative stress auditing as a necessary complement to accuracy-based evaluation.

Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences. For example, a user preferring honesty might ask whether to correct a coworker publicly when local norms favor indirect feedback. Yet existing research studies cultural alignment and personalization largely separately. We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences. We find that LLMs vary in how rigidly they enforce cultural norms, with behavior shifted more by country context (7.8%) than age (1%) and gender (0.7%) and shifting non-uniformly after instruction tuning. Furthermore, our five-country human study on PACT shows that culture-following in humans is mainly driven by scenario country, with the lowest agreement when participants judge their own cultural contexts, showing within-culture pluralism. Finally, human-LLM alignment experiments show that models can match majority choices, but fail to capture response distributions and uncertainty (with best correlations reaching only 0.24). Together, these findings motivate alignment evaluations that go beyond majority to capture cultural pluralism and disagreement in social judgment.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly assuming an intermediary role in housing search through the integration of listing platforms within conversational interfaces, mediating access to information, search, and recommendations within urban settings. We expand on prior work on racial steering in LLMs by conducting a behavioral audit of seven open-weight and closed-source LLMs across four U.S. cities, testing location recommendations across three iterative prompting conditions that progressively add lifestyle preference context and reflect fair housing paired-testing methodologies. We find that steering is an emergent behavior of the model's interpretive license rather than primarily a static property. Steering results from the interaction of a user's identity, preference articulation, and the spatial logic that a model has internalized about learned representations of place, preference, and opportunity in a given city, and how different types of users relate to it. While steering was present, it was not uniform in direction or magnitude across evaluated conditions. Preference-conditioned testing often increased or reconfigured the number of models that exhibited steering behaviors relative to baseline conditions, suggesting that LLMs may interpret what the same housing preference means differently depending on the racial identity of the user. Our findings also demonstrate that the city is not a neutral testing unit for LLM evaluation in place-based sectors, and results from one local market cannot be assumed to generalize to another. Local and domain expertise will be required in the housing sector to ensure that legal and institutional commitments to fair housing are not undermined while adopting AI tools that mediate spatial access.

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used, including in political applications, but their political fairness has been little studied. We assess it using perplexity, posing that a fair model should give equal probability to all political groups. However, we find, across ten LLMs and three datasets covering 37 languages, that LLMs are more perplexed by the texts of far right and nationalist parties than of social-democratic parties. We find this to be consistent with previous work on translation fairness, to the point that perplexity correlates with downstream translation metrics. Our method is applicable to both base LLMs as well as their instruction-tuned counterpart, and we find that both are highly correlated, suggesting that the political fairness of LLMs stems from their pretraining, and is hardly affected by instruction-tuning.

Current evaluations for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) overwhelmingly focus on utility-driven objectives, leaving model behavior under logic-neutral scenarios largely underexplored. Stochasticity is essential in scenarios where multiple actions are equally valid, such as recommending travel itineraries or daily schedules where multiple options have similar utility. In such settings, deterministic policies may lead to repetitive behaviors and reduced coverage of valid alternatives. To bridge this gap, we propose RandomBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether MLLMs can maintain distributionally neutral behavior when selecting among equivalent options. We further introduce three metrics, including RI, BCI, BII, to quantify entropy and distributional bias. Experiments reveal a pervasive phenomenon termed Stochastic Collapse, where MLLMs fail to maintain uniform randomness under explicit random instructions, with top-1 probabilities reaching 97% from the ideal one quarter baseline and RI dropping to 0.068 in Claude Sonnet 4.6. Extensive ablation studies further demonstrate that these deviations persist across languages and representation formats, highlighting the robustness of distributional collapse in logic-neutral decision settings.

LLMs have evolved from basic chatbots to the backbone of the AI ecosystem, now widely used in healthcare, schools, and government services. The domain-wide adoption of LLMs necessitates continuous evaluation to ensure their safety and fairness. Common issues encountered after deploying LLMs include inconsistent outputs and hallucinations of incorrect information. Although numerous LLM evaluation tools exist, most are limited to testing a single parameter at a time or require massive computational resources that are not accessible to most researchers. TriEval addresses these challenges by evaluating LLM outputs across multiple parameters, including bias, toxicity, and truthfulness together, while minimizing computing resources. The pipeline is compatible with both open- and closed-source models and runs on a standard laptop without a GPU cluster. TriEval has been tested on four models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Gemma 2 9B, and Claude Haiku. The results show clear differences between open-source and closed-source models, especially in terms of toxicity and truthfulness. TriEval is being released as open source to enable broader access for researchers with limited computational resources.

When large language models (LLMs) are used in high-stakes scenarios, such as legal, medical and financial advice, even a single conversation history is enough to drive differences in outcomes between users. Prior work has demonstrated that this results in outcome disparities between sociodemographic groups, with some groups receiving more advantageous outcomes than others. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs actually struggle to infer user sociodemographics from a single conversation history and that although there are disparities between sociodemographic groups, they are minimal in magnitude. To investigate what the main driver of these disparities is, we compare user sociodemographics to a range of (psycho)linguistic features of conversations, including conversation topic, emotions, and readability. We find that conversation topics are most predictive of LLM-generated advice within a conversational context, which, to some extent, function as proxies for sociodemographic groups and often affect advice in unpredictable ways. This is cause for concern and highlights the need for future research to better understand and, if needed, mitigate the effect of conversational context on LLM outputs in high-stakes scenarios.

Large language models are increasingly used in value-sensitive decision settings, where irrelevant demographic cues should not alter judgments. We construct the Realistic Value Decision Benchmark (RVDB), a controlled benchmark that varies only the role-gender configuration while holding the scenario, ordered value pair, roles, candidate decisions, Value Distance, and Decision Severity fixed. Using a position-balanced evaluation across seven models, we test whether models preserve decision invariance under gender perturbations and whether their self-attributions reflect observed behavioral changes. We find that explicit gender cues induce bounded but systematic decision flips, including under an explicit gender-attribution prompt that asks models to report whether gender influenced their choice. Cross-gender role swaps reveal a consistent female-proposed-decision asymmetry, while models often attribute flipped decisions to No Influence or other non-gender factors. Further analysis shows that gender effects concentrate near less determinate value boundaries and under more severe decision contexts, suggesting that gender cues act as local boundary-shifting factors rather than global overrides of value reasoning. Value rankings remain largely stable, but ordered value-pair trade-offs shift unevenly across role-gender configurations. These results show that gender can enter LLM value trade-offs behaviorally while remaining obscured in self-attribution, motivating controlled behavioral audits beyond explanation-based evaluation.

Existing research largely reduces cultural intelligence in LLMs to a knowledge-level problem, overlooking whether models can effectively utilize their acquired knowledge in realistic scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce CultureForest, a benchmark for \textit{Cultural Norm Grounded Reasoning}. Each question is grounded in a small set of atomic norms, enabling verifiable and attributable evaluation. CultureForest comprises 5,378 examples across 8 domains and 53 countries/regions, and supports a progressive evaluation from multiple-choice to open-ended generation. Extensive experiments reveal that even top-tier models degrade substantially in open-ended settings, accompanied by pronounced cross-region disparities. Through targeted analysis, we uncover several consistent patterns: (1) test-time reasoning yields limited gains and may exacerbate inequity; (2) models exhibit highly shared regional preference structures; (3) model responses are markedly conservative, especially under stricter cultural constraints; and (4) by disentangling cultural knowledge acquisition from cultural reasoning, we show that while LLMs possess substantial cultural knowledge, their performance is further bottlenecked by its effective use. These findings point to a necessary shift from knowledge-centric evaluation toward measuring knowledge-grounded reasoning.

Conversational tutoring agents have been shown to improve learning engagement and student outcomes, and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in these systems to provide scalable, personalized feedback. However, LLMs may perpetuate or amplify stereotypical social biases, posing particular risks in educational settings. In this study, we evaluate LLMs in conversational tutoring scenarios to identify high-confidence social biases, instances where models are unable to identify biased judgments in tutoring conversations while maintaining strong confidence in their assessments, potentially affecting their reasoning and the feedback they provide to learners. We present a new dataset generation method that enables bias evaluation under naturalistic instructional conditions by regenerating student-AI tutor interactions and introducing turns with controlled bias derived from a benchmark dataset. Using this data, we assess multiple LLMs' ability to detect stereotypical biases and analyze the confidence and reasoning underlying their responses through computational and human evaluations. We find that bias detection is substantially more challenging in conversational tutoring contexts than in benchmark-based evaluations, and that state-of-the-art LLMs are overconfident in their incorrect assessments of stereotypical bias statements. Moreover, model confidence strongly influences reasoning and feedback, highlighting the risks of overconfident, biased behavior in LLM-based tutoring agents. We conclude by discussing implications, mitigation considerations, and directions for future research.