Demo: Statistically Significant Results On Biases and Errors of LLMs Do Not Guarantee Generalizable Results

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02246v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 04:20:33 GMT
• Title: Demo: Statistically Significant Results On Biases and Errors of LLMs Do Not Guarantee Generalizable Results
• Authors: Jonathan Liu, Haoling Qiu, Jonathan Lasko, Damianos Karakos, Mahsa Yarmohammadi, Mark Dredze,
• Abstract summary: We develop an infrastructure that automatically generates queries to probe LLMs and 2) evaluates answers to these queries using multiple LLM-as-a-judge setups and prompts.<n>As a baseline study, we perform two case studies on inter-LLM agreement and the impact of varying the answering and evaluation LLMs.
• Score: 10.858989372235657
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent research has shown that hallucinations, omissions, and biases are prevalent in everyday use-cases of LLMs. However, chatbots used in medical contexts must provide consistent advice in situations where non-medical factors are involved, such as when demographic information is present. In order to understand the conditions under which medical chatbots fail to perform as expected, we develop an infrastructure that 1) automatically generates queries to probe LLMs and 2) evaluates answers to these queries using multiple LLM-as-a-judge setups and prompts. For 1), our prompt creation pipeline samples the space of patient demographics, histories, disorders, and writing styles to create realistic questions that we subsequently use to prompt LLMs. In 2), our evaluation pipeline provides hallucination and omission detection using LLM-as-a-judge as well as agentic workflows, in addition to LLM-as-a-judge treatment category detectors. As a baseline study, we perform two case studies on inter-LLM agreement and the impact of varying the answering and evaluation LLMs. We find that LLM annotators exhibit low agreement scores (average Cohen's Kappa $\kappa=0.118$), and only specific (answering, evaluation) LLM pairs yield statistically significant differences across writing styles, genders, and races. We recommend that studies using LLM evaluation use multiple LLMs as evaluators in order to avoid arriving at statistically significant but non-generalizable results, particularly in the absence of ground-truth data. We also suggest publishing inter-LLM agreement metrics for transparency. Our code and dataset are available here: https://github.com/BBN-E/medic-neurips-2025-demo.

Related papers

• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Do LLMs Favor LLMs? Quantifying Interaction Effects in Peer Review [23.244156664404205]
  We provide the first comprehensive analysis of LLM use across the peer review pipeline.<n>We analyze over 125,000 paper-review pairs from ICLR, NeurIPS, and ICML.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T18:50:54Z)
• How Much Content Do LLMs Generate That Induces Cognitive Bias in Users? [13.872175096831343]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into applications ranging from review summarization to medical diagnosis support.<n>We investigate when and how LLMs expose users to biased content and quantify its severity.<n>Our findings show that LLMs expose users to content that changes the sentiment of the context in 21.86% of the cases, hallucinates on post-knowledge-cutoff data questions in 57.33% of the cases, and primacy bias in 5.94% of the cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T21:56:44Z)
• Improving Automatic Evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Biomedical Relation Extraction via LLMs-as-the-Judge [7.064104563689608]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in biomedical relation extraction.<n>This paper investigates the use of LLMs-as-the-Judge as an alternative evaluation method for biomedical relation extraction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T02:01:52Z)
• Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge [69.96778498636071]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods.<n>In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:13:03Z)
• Analyzing LLM Behavior in Dialogue Summarization: Unveiling Circumstantial Hallucination Trends [38.86240794422485]
  We evaluate the faithfulness of large language models for dialogue summarization. Our evaluation reveals subtleties as to what constitutes a hallucination. We introduce two prompt-based approaches for fine-grained error detection that outperform existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T17:49:47Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)
• Assessing Hidden Risks of LLMs: An Empirical Study on Robustness, Consistency, and Credibility [37.682136465784254]
  We conduct over a million queries to the mainstream large language models (LLMs) including ChatGPT, LLaMA, and OPT. We find that ChatGPT is still capable to yield the correct answer even when the input is polluted at an extreme level. We propose a novel index associated with a dataset that roughly decides the feasibility of using such data for LLM-involved evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T15:44:51Z)
• Multilingual Machine Translation with Large Language Models: Empirical Results and Analysis [103.89753784762445]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in handling multilingual machine translation (MMT) This paper systematically investigates the advantages and challenges of LLMs for MMT. We thoroughly evaluate eight popular LLMs, including ChatGPT and GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T15:51:30Z)
• Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback [127.75419038610455]
  Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like, fluent responses for many downstream tasks. This paper proposes a LLM-Augmenter system, which augments a black-box LLM with a set of plug-and-play modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T18:48:43Z)

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.