arXiv AI
Benevolent Bias in Multi-Turn Human-Agent Dialogue
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Aug 14
Unmasking Conversational Bias in AI Multiagent Systems
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 AI
Jun 19
DeFrame: Debiasing Large Language Models Against Framing Effects
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 Machine Learning
1d ago
GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models
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...
arXiv AI
Aug 26
Benchmarking LLM Judges for Voice-Agent Evaluation: Reliability, Calibration, and Human Oversight
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.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 2
SenseJudge: Human-Centric Preference-Driven Judgment Framework
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.
arXiv Computation and Language
2d ago
Evaluating Second-Order Bias of LLMs Through Epistemic Entitlement
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.