Position Bias

Human eye movements in visual recognition reflect a balance between foveal sampling and peripheral context. Task-driven hard-attention models for vision are often evaluated by how well their scanpaths match human gaze. However, common scanpath metrics can be strongly confounded by dataset-specific center bias, especially on object-centric datasets. Using Gaze-CIFAR-10, we show that a trivial center-fixation baseline achieves surprisingly strong scanpath scores, approaching many learned policies. This makes standard metrics optimistic and blurs the distinction between genuine behavioral alignment and mere central tendency. We then analyze a hard-attention classifier under constrained vision by sweeping foveal patch size and peripheral context, revealing a peripheral sweet spot: only a narrow range of sensory constraints yields scanpaths that are simultaneously (i) above the center baseline after debiasing and (ii) temporally human-like in movement statistics. To address center bias, we propose GCS (Gaze Consistency Score), a center-debiased composite metric augmented with movement similarity. GCS uncovers a robust sweet spot at medium patch size with both foveal and peripheral vision, that is not obvious from raw scanpath metrics or accuracy alone, and also highlights a "shortcut regime" when the field-of-view becomes too large. We discuss implications for evaluating active perception on object-centric datasets and for designing gaze benchmarks that better separate behavioral alignment from center bias.

Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examined point-wise or pair-wise evaluation protocols; in contrast, our focus is on rubric-based evaluation, which has been attracting increasing attention owing to its utility for training models in domains where verification is otherwise difficult. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multiple-choice setting and therefore exhibits position bias: LLMs tend to prefer score options that appear at specific positions within the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate that this position bias is consistent. Its direction, however, is model-specific: some judges favor the first option, while others favor the last. We further identify a second, orthogonal axis of bias: when a prompt scores several criteria simultaneously, the ordering of the criteria itself shifts the resulting scores. We additionally explore permuting the order of the rubric options as a means of mitigating position bias, and find that although the bias can be attenuated, improvements in the correlation between model judgments and human annotations are obtained primarily for models that exhibit strong bias. Our results recast rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge as a multiple-choice problem with measurable, model-specific position bias, and we further confirm that only a small number of random order permutations are sufficient to reduce the error introduced by this bias for the majority of models.

Large audio-language models (LALMs) are often used in tasks that involve reasoning over ordered options. An open question is whether their predictions are influenced by the order of answer choices, which would indicate a form of position bias and undermine their reliability. In this paper, we identify and analyze this problem in LALMs. We demonstrate that no model is immune to this bias through extensive experiments on six LALMs across three widely used benchmarks and their spoken counterparts. Shuffling the order of answer options can cause performance fluctuations of up to 24% and even change model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of current evaluation practices. We also study permutation-based strategies and show that they can mitigate bias in most cases. Our work represents the first systematic investigation of this issue in LALMs, and we hope it raises awareness and motivates further research in this direction.