arXiv AI By Nouar AlDahoul, Hezerul Abdul Karim, Myles Joshua Toledo Tan

Need or Reputation? Region, National Income, and Academic Status in LLM Gatekeeping Decisions

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study examines how large language models (LLMs) decide who gets access to restricted academic resources in a controlled simulation. Models consistently favor PhD candidates, but their preferences shift with the requester's region and academic status. Large proprietary LLMs tend to favor low‑income or Global South applicants, while smaller open‑weight models favor the Global North, suggesting that model scale, alignment, and training data influence gatekeeping biases.

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 AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 7

Who Gets Access? Global Region and Academic Status Bias in AI-Generated Academic Gatekeeping Scenarios

arXiv:2608. 05178v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Equitable access to scientific knowledge often depends on informal gatekeeping decisions, particularly when resources such as paywalled articles, datasets, or professional materials such as curriculum vitae (CV) must be shared selectively.

By Nouar AlDahoul, Hezerul Abdul Karim, Myles Joshua Toledo Tan
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 18

Accuracy Is Not Enough: A Cross-Architecture Audit of Demographic Bias in Deep Knowledge Tracing

The study audits demographic bias across four deep knowledge tracing architectures—DKT, DKVMN, SAKT, and AKT—using two large public datasets (Eedi and OULAD). It finds that bias is context‑dependent: socioeconomic bias is significant on Eedi, while gender bias appears on OULAD for most models. The most accurate model, AKT, also exhibits the greatest bias, and standard mitigation techniques such as reweighting and adversarial debiasing fail to reduce bias without sacrificing accuracy.

By Dang Quang Minh, Nguyen Dung Son, Nguyen Huu Loi, Truong Viet Vu, Nguyen Thai Anh
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 23

Invisibilization as a Source of Probability Bias in Language Models

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) from OpenAI and Anthropic exhibit probability bias when deciding whether to trust information from reporters of different racial descriptions. Using a two‑urn Bayesian game and 6,600 sessions, the authors find that models often refuse to assess a reporter’s credibility—especially for Black‑described reporters—yet when they do assess, Black reporters receive slightly higher trust. The bias is subtle, growing with reasoning effort, and is not detected by standard audits that compare average trust or only assessed cases.

By Christian Arnold, Ernesto Calvo, Guadalupe Gonzalez, Sebasti\'an Vallejo Vera, Tiago Ventura
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Thomson: Continual Learning of Frontier Models for SovereignAI

The paper introduces Thomson, a frontier AI model developed through continual learning on open-weight models, aiming to democratize access to high-performance AI. It argues that institutions with limited resources can achieve frontier-level performance by applying a modern mid- & post-training stack, preserving model plasticity and stability while minimizing high-impact interventions. Thomson demonstrates competitive performance across agentic tasks, safety, legal, tax, multilingualism, and large-scale deep research, exhibiting a distinctive π-shaped improvement pattern and effectively mitigating the forgetting problem seen in narrow domain adaptation.

By Shengzhuang Chen, Jerrod Parker, Yejin Bang, Andrew M. Bean, Nabeel Seedat, Stefan Winzeck, Daniil Glazko, Jannik Zgraggen, Fangyi Yu, Scott Arnott, Dietrich Trautmann, Luca Ciuffreda, Guglielmo Bonifazi, Davide Romano, Bradley Bell, Kirsty Fielding, Daniele Giofr\`e, Tom Zielund, Ipshita Chatterjee, Sneha Murthy Ghantasala, Manpreet Nanreh, John Scoville, Maciej Sakowicz, Wassim Seifeddine, Lukas Thede, Jonathan Richard Schwarz
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 16

Bias Audits Detect Bias but Disagree on Ranking: Evidence from Ten Instruments and Ten Frontier Models

The study evaluates ten bias audit instruments across ten advanced language models on occupational gender, age, and socioeconomic status. While each tool reliably detects bias, their rankings of model performance are essentially random, indicating that different audits measure distinct constructs. The findings show that a single audit can identify bias direction within its own framework, but no audit can consistently rank models against one another.

By William Guey, Pierrick Bougault, Wei Zhang, Vitor D. de Moura, Jos\'e O. Gomes