The paper introduces a comprehensive psychometric battery to dissect the components of yes‑no bias in large language models’ moral judgments. By crossing question polarity, printed order, and answer label, the authors separate stance, position, word, and verdict effects, and fit a two‑parameter model of framing susceptibility and decisiveness. Applying this method to 1.35 million trials across twenty moral dilemmas and ten frontier models, they find that response‑form bias is widespread but varies, with some models exhibiting hidden verdict attachment that surface analysis cannot detect.
arXiv:2607. 05552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly issue judgments read as binary verdicts, and a growing literature reports such judgments shifting under logically irrelevant changes of wording - among them an amplified yes-no bias on moral dilemmas, absent in humans.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly issue judgments read as binary verdicts, and a growing literature reports such judgments shifting under logically irrelevant changes of wording - among them an amplified yes-no bias on moral dilemmas, absent in humans. A single framing cannot say what such a shift is: in a yes/no question the word "no" is at once logical verdict, lexical token, and last-printed option.
arXiv:2601. 21433v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing.
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
arXiv:2610.28066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual evaluations often score a model's opening yes or no, a token that also carries model and language answering conventions. We ask when dif...
arXiv:2605. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings that require nuanced ethical reasoning, yet existing bias evaluations treat model outputs as simply "biased" or "unbiased.
LLM judges, models that score another system's output, can be gamed by the systems they score. Recent work identifies one defence that works: the judge solves the task itself first and commits to that...
arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.
The paper investigates whether widely used evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) implement a defense called commit‑first judging, which requires a judge to solve a task itself before accepting a candidate answer. Across 24 configurations in eight popular frameworks, none use the full commit‑first method; nine use a weaker variant that is ineffective. In controlled experiments, the weaker variant allowed systems to game the judge, while the full commit‑first approach eliminated this vulnerability but sometimes worsened evaluation when the judge’s own answer was incorrect.
The paper demonstrates that reading a large language model (LLM) judge’s verdict from the logits of its first generated token—an approach used in constrained decoding and likelihood‑scoring evaluation—introduces a significant distortion in position bias. Because judges do not always start with a verdict token (12–49% of cases for Qwen3 judges and <3% for Llama‑3.1‑8B and Phi‑3.5‑mini), this readout often returns the first response rather than a true judgment, inflating position bias by up to 42 points while barely affecting judge accuracy. The authors recommend reporting the frequency with which a judge leads with a verdict token to provide a more accurate assessment of position bias.
arXiv:2609.14759v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Alignment applied after pretraining is shallow in a measurable way: a single direction in a model's residual stream can be edited out, and the model...
The study examines whether large language models truly base legal verdicts on the statutes or precedents they cite. By fixing case facts and swapping the cited authority with an unrelated one, researchers found that while models correctly name the authority 66.7%-100% of the time, the resulting verdict often remains unchanged—only 0.0%-21.7% of the time on CaseHOLD, 30.0%-76.7% on ECHR and SCOTUS, and 43.3%-50.0% on ContractNLI. Even a purpose‑built legal‑reasoning model and larger scales did not close this gap, and adversarial instructions further exposed vulnerabilities in verdict consistency.