arXiv:2501. 14844v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Detecting biases in the outputs produced by generative models is essential to reduce the potential risks associated with their application in critical settings.
arXiv:2602. 04306v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, ensuring their fair responses across demographics has become crucial.
arXiv:2312.06315v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting. There has been a significant increase in the usage of large language...
The paper evaluates the use of large language models (LLMs) as judges for assessing conversational voice agents, comparing human judgments with GPT‑4.1 and GPT‑5 across telecom and retail interactions. It examines agreement, metric‑level correlations, and consistency across three evaluation configurations (p0, p1, p2) to determine how reliably LLMs can judge conversational quality and safety. The study finds that LLM‑based evaluation can be effective but its reliability varies by metric and configuration, suggesting a hybrid approach where LLMs handle scalable assessment while humans focus on metrics requiring contextual interpretation.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios.
The paper introduces a novel framework for assessing second‑order bias in large language models (LLMs), defined as bias in how an LLM judges the acceptability of biased content. Using principles from entitlement epistemology, the authors design a reasoning task that asks LLMs to determine whether a biased text is acceptable for specific demographic groups, and propose two metrics to quantify biased judgments. Experiments on both open‑source and closed‑source models reveal that the task bypasses safety guardrails, uncovers systematic variations across target groups, and demonstrates that models still rely on demographic labels when evaluating bias.
arXiv:2608. 05166v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present an evaluation of cognitive bias expression in state-of-the-art instruction-tuned LLMs under realistic multi-turn interaction settings.
arXiv:2508.08855v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Understanding biases and stereotypes encoded in the weights of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for developing effective mitigation st...
arXiv:2607. 22658v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Speech-to-speech dialogue models increasingly depend on prosody and interactional nuance to convey social intent, yet benchmarks for these cues remain limited.
arXiv:2608. 11236v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Roleplay evaluation should do more than assign a single score: it should reveal which role requirements were tested, which failed, and which dialogue evidence supports the judgment.
The paper titled "Safety Alignment Illusion: The Cross-Lingual Safety Gap in LLMs" highlights that current safety alignment training for large language models is predominantly English-centric, leading to failures in non‑English languages. It introduces INCLUDE, a multilingual benchmark with 2,604 prompts in six languages (English, Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, and Hinglish) to measure Indian‑centric socio‑cultural biases. Evaluation of ten open‑ and closed‑source LLMs shows that Bengali models exhibit the highest bias scores among open‑source models, while English shows the lowest bias in open‑source but the highest in closed‑source models.
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...