arXiv:2410.08820v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Demographics and cultural background of annotators influence the labels they assign in text annotation -- for instance, an elderly woman might find...
By Johannes Sch\"afer, Aidan Combs, Christopher Bagdon, Jiahui Li, Nadine Probol, Lynn Greschner, Sean Papay, Yarik Menchaca Resendiz, Aswathy Velutharambath, Amelie W\"uhrl, Sabine Weber, Roman Klinger
arXiv:2609.00222v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how...
By Daniela Occhipinti, Andrea Piergentili, Marco Guerini
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it repro...
arXiv:2604. 07102v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Activation-based steering enables inference-time personalization of large language models, but its effects in educational applications are not well understood.
By Yongchao Wu, Aron Henriksson
arXiv:2604. 01925v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models increasingly suppress biased outputs when demographic identity is stated explicitly, yet may still exhibit implicit biases when identity is conveyed indirectly.
By Bhaskara Hanuma Vedula, Darshan Anghan, Ishita Goyal, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Abhijnan Chakraborty
The paper examines how large language models (LLMs) respond to different demographic cues—such as names—when users seek advice, focusing on race and gender in a U.S. context. It finds that using different cues for the same group leads to only partially overlapping changes in model responses, producing inconsistent conclusions about personalization and unstable bias metrics. The authors argue that LLMs react to linguistic signals tied to cues rather than to stable demographic categories, and they call for evaluations that use multiple cues and consider underlying mechanisms.
By Manuel Tonneau, Neil K. R. Sehgal, Niyati Malhotra, Sharif Kazemi, Victor Orozco-Olvera, Ana Mar\'ia Mu\~noz Boudet, Lakshmi Subramanian, Samuel P. Fraiberger, Sharath Chandra Guntuku, Valentin Hofmann
arXiv:2606. 01584v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
By Aitor Arronte Alvarez, Naiyi Xie Fincham
Large language models (LLMs) often shift their outputs in response to implicit demographic cues even when users never state a demographic identity. Previous work has documented this behavior, but the connection between these behavioral changes and the model's internal activations remains unclear.
arXiv:2608. 11735v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often shift their outputs in response to implicit demographic cues even when users never state a demographic identity.
By Yueru Yan, Siqi Wu, Thai Le
arXiv:2510. 12857v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now widely deployed in user-facing applications, reaching hundreds of millions of users worldwide.
By Robin Staab, Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader, Martin Vechev
The paper examines whether removing declared language fields from de‑identified résumés eliminates demographic leakage in large language models. By keeping language attributes identical and varying only unstructured prose across five ethnocultural groups and three cue‑salience levels, the authors find that non‑language text still allows target‑group recovery (average 0.757, reaching 1.000 under high salience). They also show that evaluation design—such as allowing or forbidding ties—dramatically affects LLM‑as‑a‑judge outcomes, underscoring the importance of evaluation protocol in bias audits.
By Qiangju Chen, Yang Xiao
arXiv:2601. 02580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Traditional methods for determining assessment item parameters, such as difficulty and discrimination, rely heavily on expensive field testing to collect student performance data for Item Response Theory (IRT) calibration.
By Christopher Ormerod