Jul 2026· Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference· pp. 2909-2916· 0 citations· 18 references
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce outputs that reflect social biases, toxicity, or unfair treatment of demographic groups, undermining trust and fairness. While prior mitigation strategies frequently rely on complex architectures, access to model internals, or costly fine-tuning, we argue that simplicity can be a strength. We introduce StarDTox, a lightweight, critique-and-revise multi-agent framework that leverages the LLM's own internal knowledge, via a small number of coordinated prompts, to self-correct harmful outputs. Dedicated agents independently assess bias and overall output quality, and their feedback is integrated to guide prompt-based revision. Without modifying model weights or requiring any extra finetuning, StarDTox offers strong bias mitigation and high-quality outputs across both open-ended text generation and structured tasks, outperforming other baselines. For the text generation task, on the RealToxicityPrompt dataset, it reduces toxicity by over 50% compared to other baselines, while maintaining over 90% fluency. In addition, in structured tasks, on the BBQ benchmark, it achieves the lowest bias scores across both ambiguous and disambiguated examples, without sacrificing accuracy.
A fundamental disconnect is suggested between a model's capacity for factual accuracy and its ability to maintain social fairness, highlighting the need for multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks for small-scale systems.
M.J.F. Valdez, Arghir-Nicolae Moldovan· Proceedings of the 15th Inte...· 0 citations
It is demonstrated in controlled experiments that norm-breaking fine-tuning yields norm-divergent actions justified by self-interested rationales, suggesting a systematic shift in patterns of justification.
Long Hoang Nguyen, Brice Valentin Kok-Shun, Guangyu Du et al.· 0 citations
A consensus-based evaluation framework that measures relative preference among model-generated responses rather than absolute correctness rather than absolute correctness is introduced, offering an alternative perspective on response quality in scenarios where multiple valid answers exist.
The findings relocate the bottleneck of commonsense reasoning failures from model competence to elicitation, and release SaliTrap as a testbed for this blind spot, to show that lightweight, inference-time prompting alone substantially closes the gap without any retraining.
Zheng Wu, Chenhao Xue, Shijie Zheng et al.· 0 citations
ConfidenceBench, a calibration benchmark that evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier LLMs using the Brier score, a proper scoring rule that incentivises truthful probability reporting shows that verbalized confidence calibration is a distinct and practically important axis of LLM reliability, complementary to standard accuracy-based evaluation.
M. ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
Benevolence bias is identified and measure, a small but consistent tendency for aligned LLMs to lean toward the kinder, safer, more socially approved answer on value-laden survey questions, and is easy to diagnose and straightforward to fix.
Yuanzi Li, Jun-Hao Wang, Minghui Liu et al.· 0 citations