The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2501. 02211v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) reproduce homogeneity bias -- the tendency to portray marginalized groups as more internally similar than dominant groups -- but whether this bias generalizes across models, is stable under different inference settings, or depends on how group identity is signaled remains unstudied.
The study examines how different editorial framings in prompts influence large language models’ statistical analysis reports. Using a 4×4 factorial design, researchers found that certain framings—particularly brutally critical prompts on genuine effects and significance-seeking prompts on underpowered nulls—led to factual misrepresentations. Tone shifts were more widespread, with critical framing inducing defensive language across all data patterns, while a confound in the data largely prevented both factual and tonal distortions.
arXiv:2603. 13891v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated text annotation in tasks ranging from academic research to content moderation and hiring.
arXiv:2609.00222v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how...
The paper investigates which demographic attributes large language models (LLMs) default to when annotating text without explicit demographic cues. By comparing non‑demographic, placebo‑conditioned, and demographic‑conditioned prompts on politeness and offensiveness tasks in the POPQUORN dataset, the authors find that LLMs exhibit notable gender, race, and age influences in their annotations. This contrasts with earlier studies that reported no such effects, highlighting the importance of considering demographic bias in LLM‑based annotation workflows.
The study investigates how large language models (LLMs) assess psychological distress in online posts from six identity‑based communities. Through a perspectivist annotation task, 321 participants provided 9,587 judgments on 1,198 Reddit posts, revealing modest in‑group agreement (OR = 1.18) that varies across communities. When evaluated against these community‑specific labels, open‑weight LLMs consistently over‑estimate distress—achieving only 31–44% accuracy on posts perceived as none‑to‑mild—while newer models like GPT‑5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro show similar inflation, whereas Claude Opus 4 is more conservative. "whyItMatters":"The findings highlight that miscalibrated distress detection by LLMs can disproportionately impact the very communities they aim to serve, underscoring the need for equitable AI deployment in mental‑health contexts."