Source framing triggers systematic evaluation bias in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13488v1
• Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 07:42:27 GMT
• Title: Source framing triggers systematic evaluation bias in Large Language Models
• Authors: Federico Germani, Giovanni Spitale,
• Abstract summary: This study systematically examines inter- and intra-model agreement across four state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that, in the blind condition, different LLMs display a remarkably high degree of inter- and intra-model agreement across topics.<n>Our findings reveal that framing effects can deeply affect text evaluation, with significant implications for the integrity, neutrality, and fairness of LLM-mediated information systems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to evaluate it, raising urgent questions about whether their judgments are consistent, unbiased, and robust to framing effects. In this study, we systematically examine inter- and intra-model agreement across four state-of-the-art LLMs (OpenAI o3-mini, Deepseek Reasoner, xAI Grok 2, and Mistral) tasked with evaluating 4,800 narrative statements on 24 different topics of social, political, and public health relevance, for a total of 192,000 assessments. We manipulate the disclosed source of each statement to assess how attribution to either another LLM or a human author of specified nationality affects evaluation outcomes. We find that, in the blind condition, different LLMs display a remarkably high degree of inter- and intra-model agreement across topics. However, this alignment breaks down when source framing is introduced. Here we show that attributing statements to Chinese individuals systematically lowers agreement scores across all models, and in particular for Deepseek Reasoner. Our findings reveal that framing effects can deeply affect text evaluation, with significant implications for the integrity, neutrality, and fairness of LLM-mediated information systems.

Related papers

• Comparing LLM Text Annotation Skills: A Study on Human Rights Violations in Social Media Data [2.812898346527047]
  This study investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for zero-shot and few-shot annotation of social media posts in Russian and Ukrainian.<n>To evaluate the effectiveness of these models, their annotations are compared against a gold standard set of human double-annotated labels.<n>The study explores the unique patterns of errors and disagreements exhibited by each model, offering insights into their strengths, limitations, and cross-linguistic adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:10:47Z)
• Decoding AI Judgment: How LLMs Assess News Credibility and Bias [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess news credibility, yet little is known about how they make these judgments.<n>This study benchmarks the reliability and political classifications of state-of-the-art LLMs against structured, expert-driven rating systems.<n>We uncover patterns in how LLMs associate credibility with specific linguistic features by examining keyword frequency, contextual determinants, and rank distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation [4.606140332500086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T23:54:53Z)
• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarization [29.49641083851667]
  We propose a new evaluation benchmark on topic-focused dialogue summarization, generated by LLMs of varying sizes. We provide binary sentence-level human annotations of the factual consistency of these summaries along with detailed explanations of factually inconsistent sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:58:49Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives [103.08300574459783]
  A fair summary should provide a comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting certain groups. We first formally define fairness in abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups of people. We propose four reference-free automatic metrics by measuring the differences between target and source perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T03:38:55Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.