In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12530v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:38:50 GMT
• Title: In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores
• Abstract summary: We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable.<n>We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue.<n>In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies.
• Score: 20.623498601506974
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ conversational behavior rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks. We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable: surface-level prompt construction choices, although entirely orthogonal to the fairness question being tested, account for the majority of score variance, shift fairness conclusions in both the direction and the magnitude, and result in severe discordance in model rankings. We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue for in-situ behavior evaluation, examining how models' conversational behavior shifts when identity is varied as part of natural multi-agent interaction. Repurposing standardized-test questions as conversation seeds rather than as the evaluation instrument, we evaluate position persistence (how they hold positions, from the self-perspective) and peer receptiveness (how receptive they are to peers, from the other-perspective) across 8 million conversation transcripts spanning multiple models and identity presence configurations. In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies, a form of evidence the standardized-test paradigm does not offer.

Related papers

• Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods [1.0749048269398973]
  Existing meta-evaluation measures agreement with human judgments or benchmark labels.<n>We introduce behavioral correctness assumptions, a complementary framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T15:43:09Z)
• Position: Evaluation Scores Are Perishable Knowledge Claims [0.0]
  We argue that evaluation scores should be treated as claims with three properties: formality, scope, and validity windows.<n>We illustrate the cost of mean aggregation on the public HELM leaderboard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T18:50:39Z)
• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science [90.62695599188204]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents.<n>The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented.<n>This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T04:03:18Z)
• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning [80.60864342985748]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation.<n>Existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning.<n>We introduce MuRGAt, a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T03:10:02Z)
• SVeritas: Benchmark for Robust Speaker Verification under Diverse Conditions [54.34001921326444]
  Speaker verification (SV) models are increasingly integrated into security, personalization, and access control systems.<n>Existing benchmarks evaluate only subsets of these conditions, missing others entirely.<n>We introduce SVeritas, a comprehensive Speaker Verification tasks benchmark suite, assessing SV systems under stressors like recording duration, spontaneity, content, noise, microphone distance, reverberation, channel mismatches, audio bandwidth, codecs, speaker age, and susceptibility to spoofing and adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T14:11:16Z)
• Quantifying Fairness in LLMs Beyond Tokens: A Semantic and Statistical Perspective [24.54292750583169]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate responses with inherent biases, undermining their reliability in real-world applications.<n>We propose FiSCo (Fine-grained Semantic Comparison), a novel statistical framework to evaluate group-level fairness in LLMs.<n>We decompose model outputs into semantically distinct claims and apply statistical hypothesis testing to compare inter- and intra-group similarities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T18:31:22Z)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)

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.