arXiv:2502.10577v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Instruct-based large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and even amplify gender bias when prompted with contextually constra...
By Enzo Doyen, Amalia Todirascu
arXiv:2603. 23485v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Standard evaluation practices assume that large language model (LLM) outputs are stable when prompts are embedded in contextually equivalent discourses.
By Sagar Kumar, Ariel Flint, Luca Maria Aiello, Andrea Baronchelli
arXiv:2609.17913v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Face--voice association models may rely on language or gender cues in the voice rather than on speaker-specific voice characteristics, which can lead t...
By Marta Moscati, Swapnil Khandoker, Muhammad Saad Saeed, Shah Nawaz, Fatima Noor, Rohan Kumar Das, Mubashir Noman, Junaid Mir, Muhammad Haroon Yousaf, Khalid Malik, Markus Schedl
arXiv:2609.18533v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representation...
By Nicolas Bourrel, Abderrahmane Issam, Gerasimos Spanakis
Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representations. We ask whether speaker-linked attributes that...
arXiv:2606. 07969v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Gender bias in AI-generated stories is a well-documented problem.
By Imani Finkley, Yuanxi Li, Melanie Walsh
The paper introduces a unified framework that simultaneously measures intrinsic (encoded) and extrinsic (expressed) gender bias in large language models using identical neutral prompts. It finds a consistent link between latent gender information and output bias, but shows that alignment via supervised fine‑tuning reduces expressed bias while leaving internal gender associations largely intact and reactivatable by adversarial prompts. The study also demonstrates that debiasing gains on structured benchmarks may not transfer to realistic tasks such as story generation.
By Nour Bouchouchi, Thibault Laugel, Xavier Renard, Christophe Marsala, Marie-Jeanne Lesot, Marcin Detyniecki
arXiv:2608. 03627v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored.
By Razieh Chalehchaleh, Reza Farahbakhsh, Noel Crespi
arXiv:2607. 21820v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Audio deepfake detectors are trained to distinguish genuine speech from synthetic speech and often perform well on standard benchmarks.
By Daniyal Kabir Dar, Arun Ross
arXiv:2608. 19211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human speech is richly expressive, with prosody carrying linguistic and emotional information beyond the lexical content.
By Linkai Peng, Baorian Nuchged
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess social bias in text, but the passages they evaluate often contain surface noise such as typos and broken punctuation. This study applied five realistic noise conditions at varying intensities to 3,822 stereotype‑related responses and compared bias judgments on noisy versus original text. The findings show that noise disproportionately turns neutral judgments into biased ones—up to 120 times more likely—while rarely converting biased judgments into neutral ones, and that the most fragile LLM judge exhibits the greatest distortion at mild noise levels. As LLMs become more robust, the bias distortion tends toward parity rather than reversal, meaning bias measured on noisy text is systematically overestimated, especially in fairness‑critical categories.
By DongHyun Ryu, Jaehyeok Lee, YeongJun Hwang, JinYeong Bak
The paper investigates whether audio‑language models capture paralinguistic cues beyond spoken content. Using the Expresso dataset and four open‑source models, the authors trace how speaking style information is encoded in the late layers of the audio encoder but is degraded before reaching the final output. They find that some models are content‑driven while others are acoustic‑driven, revealing a gap between what is encoded and what is utilized in current audio‑language models.
By Bhuvan Koduru, Dareen Safar B Alharthi, Rita Singh, Bhiksha Raj