A bias depth score is introduced that measures both how strongly a model prefers its top answer under direct prompting and whether that answer survives scenario reframing and shows that Deep biases are consistently harder to remove than Shallow biases.
Abstract
Large language models often repeatedly select the same answer even when many alternatives are plausible. Prior work treats this concentration as bias, but it does not distinguish stable model preferences from responses that depend on a particular prompt wording. We introduce a bias depth score that measures both how strongly a model prefers its top answer under direct prompting and whether that answer survives scenario reframing. Across 4,442 opinion prompts and four large language models, only about a quarter of the concentrated preferences survive reframing. We call these persistent cases Deep biases, and the remaining prompt-dependent cases Shallow biases. Our results show that Deep biases are more often inherited from pretraining and preserved through SFT. Under both continued fine-tuning and prompt-based debiasing for diversity, Deep biases are consistently harder to remove than Shallow biases. Bias depth therefore separates stable learned biases from prompt-wording artifacts that single-prompt metrics conflate. Code, models, and data are available at deepbias.github.io.
It is demonstrated that valence-related activation patterns leave hidden traces that predictably govern later choices, even when all visible tokens are identical across conditions, and whether these traces are accompanied by any subjective experience relevant to model welfare remains unclear.
The central finding is a zero-refusal phenomenon: modern LLMs decline to discuss restricted books in only 0.07% of cases, effectively invalidating the premise of jailbreaking research for this content class.
This paper test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence and, in turn, improves performance, and evaluates two different strategies for mitigating bias.
A separate survey comparison finds that selecting the more responsive checkpoint can worsen human fit; responsiveness is confounded with training status, and temperature calibration largely removes this cost but not errors in group ordering.
Yu-Fan Zhou, Yuxuan Liu, En-Ze Ma et al.· 0 citations
Language models are appealing tools for research on the past. But to trust the evidence a model provides, researchers need to know whether its responses fit the period represented. Validation is challenging, because this is not a task living people ordinarily perform, and because many questions have multiple correct an...
Ted Underwood, Zi-Liang Qiu, Sarah Griebel et al.· 0 citations
A new computational approach reveals how cells communicate to assemble into tissues. This could accelerate stem cell engineering, improve disease models, and inform therapies.
Microsoft Research Blog· microsoft.comOct 15, 2026
Zero-knowledge proofs can verify computing results without rerunning workloads or exposing sensitive data. Magnetar helps bring them into the mainstream with support for standard programming languages, major speed gains, and quantum-resistant security. The post Proof-based general-purpose computing with Magnetar appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 24, 2026