arXiv Computation and Language By Kuniko Paxton, Ifeoluwa Wuraola, Dhavalkumar Thakker

Effects of Model Scale and Quantization on Social Bias and Abstention in Question Answering

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper investigates how model size and quantization affect social bias and abstention in question answering. Using the BBQ benchmark and models from Qwen3, Gemma-3, and SmolLM2, it finds that larger models improve accuracy but bias does not scale simply, while quantization effects differ across settings. Importantly, many configurations with fewer biased responses also show increased abstention, suggesting that lower bias may partly result from more frequent abstention.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

Investigating Social Bias Changes in Quantized Language Models

Post‑training quantization of large language models reduces memory usage but can alter social biases in ways that aggregate metrics miss. In a large‑scale study of 50 quantized models on PostTrainingBiasBench, the authors discovered a phenomenon called quantization‑induced bias flipping, where up to 21% of responses switch from biased to unbiased or vice versa, especially for uncertain predictions and stronger quantization (4‑bit vs 8‑bit). These flips lead to asymmetric impacts across demographic groups, with some groups experiencing up to an 18.6% worsening of bias while others improve by 14.1%, resulting in misleadingly neutral overall scores.

By Stanley Z. Hua, Sanae Lotfi, Irene Y. Chen
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25

Likelihood Ranking doesn't Scale Like Prompting in LLMs

The paper compares two common ways of evaluating large language models (LLMs): prompting them to answer questions directly and scoring candidate answers using likelihood-based metrics. The authors introduce a new protocol that ranks declarative statements derived from question–answer pairs, and test it across 95 decoder-only models (0.1B–104B parameters) on 10 multiple-choice QA datasets. They find that while prompted answering accuracy improves sharply with model scale and instruction tuning, statement‑likelihood ranking accuracy stays relatively stable, indicating that the two evaluation methods probe different aspects of model behavior.

By Alessandro Bondielli, Lucia Passaro, Davide Bacciu, Alessandro Lenci