A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.
Large language models have improved rapidly on tasks with verifiable answers, such as mathematics and programming. Much less is known about their ability to reason about what we call conceptual questions: questions for which no ground truth is realistically accessible and no widely accepted resolution methodology exists, but on which progress can still be made by debating arguments. Most philosophical questions are of this kind, as are central components of questions in AI safety, decision theory, and social choice. Our approach is based on the view that while bottom-line conclusions on such questions are hard to evaluate, individual contextualized arguments can be evaluated far more reliably. We therefore introduce a dataset of 951 argumentative critiques of 442 position texts, spanning topics from AI safety and decision theory to ethics and politics, with 1,458 ratings by six expert raters along dimensions including centrality, strength, correctness, and clarity. We propose two scoring functions and benchmark a range of models. Performance tracks general capability rankings.
Emery Cooper, Caspar Oesterheld, Linh Nguyen et al.· 0 citations
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
It is proposed that persona-based evaluation can serve as a scalable diagnostic of what generative systems value and prioritize when depicting humanity, and that persona generations are far from neutral.
N. Corrêa, Rafaela Weber Mallmann, David Kaczér et al.· Artificial Intelligence Revi...· 0 citations
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.
Shirin Tahmasebi, Narjes Nikzad, A. H. Payberah et al.· Annual International Compute...· 0 citations
An integrated conceptual frame-work that couples attention- and perturbation-based explainability with lightweight hallucination-detection signals and token-efficient inference strategies is presented, and a set of cross-cutting consistency metrics are instrumented with a set of cross-cutting consistency metrics.
Sakshi Parate, Shreyans Sanyal· Advanced International Journ...· 0 citations
Language models (LMs) often acquire various biases during pre-training and may express them in interactions, potentially causing social harm. Existing methods often rely on counterfactual augmentation or representation projection. These strategies remain limited in practice due to their high computational costs and difficulty in scaling to larger models. Additionally, many of these strategies require manual data annotation, narrowing their scope to specific cultures and bias categories. To overcome these limitations, we propose HEIMAT, a HEurIstic-style autoMATic debiasing framework for LMs. HEIMAT consists of two main steps: bias disclosure and debiasing fine-tuning. In the first step, it uses simple templates to construct heuristic prompts, which are applied to reveal model biases and generate corresponding context prompts. In the second step, it fine-tunes the model by minimizing the Jensen-Shannon divergence of predictions on these context prompts to reduce bias. Extensive experiments show that HEIMAT effectively mitigates bias in different cultures while maintaining the model's natural language understanding (NLU) performance.
Tian Lan, Yemin Wang, Chuancheng Shi et al.· 0 citations
