Pairwise Comparison for Bias Identification and Quantification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14565v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:36:55 GMT
• Title: Pairwise Comparison for Bias Identification and Quantification
• Authors: Fabian Haak, Philipp Schaer,
• Abstract summary: Linguistic bias in online news and social media is difficult to measure.<n>We aim to reduce annotation effort by leveraging pairwise comparison for bias annotation.
• Score: 5.490018587818889
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Linguistic bias in online news and social media is widespread but difficult to measure. Yet, its identification and quantification remain difficult due to subjectivity, context dependence, and the scarcity of high-quality gold-label datasets. We aim to reduce annotation effort by leveraging pairwise comparison for bias annotation. To overcome the costliness of the approach, we evaluate more efficient implementations of pairwise comparison-based rating. We achieve this by investigating the effects of various rating techniques and the parameters of three cost-aware alternatives in a simulation environment. Since the approach can in principle be applied to both human and large language model annotation, our work provides a basis for creating high-quality benchmark datasets and for quantifying biases and other subjective linguistic aspects. The controlled simulations include latent severity distributions, distance-calibrated noise, and synthetic annotator bias to probe robustness and cost-quality trade-offs. In applying the approach to human-labeled bias benchmark datasets, we then evaluate the most promising setups and compare them to direct assessment by large language models and unmodified pairwise comparison labels as baselines. Our findings support the use of pairwise comparison as a practical foundation for quantifying subjective linguistic aspects, enabling reproducible bias analysis. We contribute an optimization of comparison and matchmaking components, an end-to-end evaluation including simulation and real-data application, and an implementation blueprint for cost-aware large-scale annotation

Related papers

• SparseEval: Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models by Sparse Optimization [64.95852289011385]
  Large language models (LLMs) continue to scale up, their performance on various downstream tasks has significantly improved.<n> evaluating their capabilities has become increasingly expensive, as performing inference on a large number of benchmark samples incurs high computational costs.<n>We propose SparseEval, a method that, for the first time, adopts gradient descent to optimize anchor weights and employs an iterative refinement strategy for anchor selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T11:12:45Z)
• Towards Consistent Detection of Cognitive Distortions: LLM-Based Annotation and Dataset-Agnostic Evaluation [2.699704259580951]
  Text-based automated Cognitive Distortion detection is a challenging task due to its subjective nature.<n>We explore the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as consistent and reliable annotators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T11:45:26Z)
• Multi-Level Aware Preference Learning: Enhancing RLHF for Complex Multi-Instruction Tasks [81.44256822500257]
  RLHF has emerged as a predominant approach for aligning artificial intelligence systems with human preferences.<n> RLHF exhibits insufficient compliance capabilities when confronted with complex multi-instruction tasks.<n>We propose a novel Multi-level Aware Preference Learning (MAPL) framework, capable of enhancing multi-instruction capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T08:33:11Z)
• Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark [53.876493664396506]
  Benchmarks are crucial for evaluating machine learning algorithm performance, facilitating comparison and identifying superior solutions.<n>This paper addresses the issue of entity bias in relation extraction tasks, where models tend to rely on entity mentions rather than context.<n>We propose a debiased relation extraction benchmark DREB that breaks the pseudo-correlation between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement.<n>To establish a new baseline on DREB, we introduce MixDebias, a debiasing method combining data-level and model training-level techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T17:01:06Z)
• A Statistical Framework for Ranking LLM-Based Chatbots [57.59268154690763]
  We propose a statistical framework that incorporates key advancements to address specific challenges in pairwise comparison analysis.<n>First, we introduce a factored tie model that enhances the ability to handle groupings of human-judged comparisons.<n>Second, we extend the framework to model covariance tiers between competitors, enabling deeper insights into performance relationships.<n>Third, we resolve optimization challenges arising from parameter non-uniqueness by introducing novel constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T12:54:19Z)
• Language Model Preference Evaluation with Multiple Weak Evaluators [89.90733463933431]
  We introduce PGED, a novel approach that leverages multiple model-based evaluators to construct preference graphs, and then ensembles and denoises these graphs for acyclic, non-contradictory evaluation results.<n>We demonstrate PGED's superiority in three applications: 1) model ranking for evaluation, 2) response selection for test-time scaling, and 3) data selection for model fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T01:57:25Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Crowdsourcing subjective annotations using pairwise comparisons reduces bias and error compared to the majority-vote method [0.0]
  We introduce a theoretical framework for understanding how random error and measurement bias enter into crowdsourced annotations of subjective constructs. We then propose a pipeline that combines pairwise comparison labelling with Elo scoring, and demonstrate that it outperforms the ubiquitous majority-voting method in reducing both types of measurement error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T17:14:12Z)
• Measuring Fairness with Biased Rulers: A Survey on Quantifying Biases in Pretrained Language Models [2.567384209291337]
  An increasing awareness of biased patterns in natural language processing resources has motivated many metrics to quantify bias' and fairness' We survey the existing literature on fairness metrics for pretrained language models and experimentally evaluate compatibility. We find that many metrics are not compatible and highly depend on (i) templates, (ii) attribute and target seeds and (iii) the choice of embeddings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-14T15:04:56Z)
• Scalable Personalised Item Ranking through Parametric Density Estimation [53.44830012414444]
  Learning from implicit feedback is challenging because of the difficult nature of the one-class problem. Most conventional methods use a pairwise ranking approach and negative samplers to cope with the one-class problem. We propose a learning-to-rank approach, which achieves convergence speed comparable to the pointwise counterpart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-11T03:38:16Z)
• Evaluating Text Coherence at Sentence and Paragraph Levels [17.99797111176988]
  We investigate the adaptation of existing sentence ordering methods to a paragraph ordering task. We also compare the learnability and robustness of existing models by artificially creating mini datasets and noisy datasets. We conclude that the recurrent graph neural network-based model is an optimal choice for coherence modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-05T03:31:49Z)

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.