The study investigates cultural biases in large language models (LLMs) by testing their ability to perform author profiling—inferring singers’ gender and ethnicity—from song lyrics in a zero‑shot setting. Evaluating over 10,000 lyrics across several open‑source models, the authors find that most LLMs default toward North American ethnicity, while DeepSeek‑1.5B leans toward Asian ethnicity, and that Ministral‑8B exhibits the strongest ethnicity bias whereas Gemma‑12B is the most balanced. The paper introduces two fairness metrics, Modality Accuracy Divergence (MAD) and Recall Divergence (RD), to quantify these disparities and provides code and results publicly on GitHub and HuggingFace.
By Valentin Lafargue, Ariel Guerra-Adames, Emmanuelle Claeys, Elouan Vuichard, Jean-Michel Loubes
arXiv:2606. 04928v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse applications, raising critical questions for governance, accountability, and data provenance.
By Fr\'ed\'eric Berdoz, Luca A. Lanzend\"orfer, Kaan Bayraktar, Roger Wattenhofer
arXiv:2604.20677v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive settings, raising concerns about fairness and bias, particularly when...
By Chaima Boufaied, Ronnie De Souza Santos, Ann Barcomb
arXiv:2608. 05157v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Double blind peer review serves as the scientific community primary defense against status and affiliation bias.
By Bulambo Mwendelwa Gloire, Prasenjit Mitra
arXiv:2608. 19670v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) compression reduces deployment costs, but standard aggregate metrics like perplexity and accuracy often mask underlying behavioral shifts.
By Yuan Wu, Mairui Li, Lesia Semenova, Chudi Zhong
The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution under different evidence conditions. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to balance reliability and responsiveness. Experiments with proprietary and open-source LLMs across various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but increases abstention, while adversarial metadata can push hallucination rates above 85%. Human evaluation confirms a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.
By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi, Ankur Padia, Edward Raff, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
arXiv:2608.21376v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Many NLP tasks require systems to provide attribution in their outputs--i.e. citations to grounding sources. Attribution serves as a bulwark against...
By Yu Hou, Hal Daum\'e III, Rachel Rudinger, William Walden
Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs.
The paper introduces GPTBIAS, a framework that uses powerful large language models like GPT‑4 to evaluate bias in other LLMs. It employs specially crafted prompts called Bias Attack Instructions to probe for bias and outputs a bias score along with detailed information such as bias types, affected demographics, keywords, reasons, and improvement suggestions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the framework’s effectiveness and usability.
By Jiaxu Zhao, Meng Fang, Shirui Pan, Wenpeng Yin, Mykola Pechenizkiy
arXiv:2606. 10911v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Claims about the robustness and fairness of deepfake speech detectors are only as credible as the datasets used to train and evaluate those systems.
By Vojt\v{e}ch Stan\v{e}k, Eva Trnovsk\'a, Kamil Malinka, Anton Firc
The paper introduces REASONS, a benchmark comprising 12,723 sentence-level citation instances across 12 arXiv subject categories, to evaluate scientific citation attribution by large language models. It proposes a dual-metric framework—Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR)—to assess the trade-off between reliability and responsiveness. Experiments on proprietary and open-source LLMs under various prompting and retrieval settings show that advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations but may increase abstention, while retrieval-augmented variants often maintain near-zero abstention. Human evaluation reveals a high ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases, underscoring the need for systems that can appropriately abstain under uncertainty.
By Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi, Ankur Padia, Edward Raff, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, Manas Gaur
The paper introduces Population Fidelity, an evaluation framework for assessing how well large language models (LLMs) represent human population attitudes. It focuses on three dimensions: group-level accuracy, between-group variation, and the structure of that variation. Using the framework, the authors replicate a prior study on machine bias and test cultural fine-tuning, finding that while fine-tuning improves overall alignment, it does not enhance representation of within-population differences.
By Neemias B. da Silva, Martin Lukk, Ali Sutani, Abhishek Moturu, Harris Yang, Daniel Silver, Matt Ratto, Thiago H. Silva