Two Wrongs, No Right: Auditing Social-Desirability Bias in LLM Annotators for Computational Social Science

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12426v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 08:14:10 GMT
• Title: Two Wrongs, No Right: Auditing Social-Desirability Bias in LLM Annotators for Computational Social Science
• Abstract summary: We audit three open-source 7B instruction-tuned models (Zephyr, Mistral-Instruct, Qwen2.5-Instruct) across six TweetEval tasks.<n>All three models exhibit neutrality bias on abortion stance, underestimating opposition prevalence by 24 to 40 percentage points and inflating the neutral label.<n>Strikingly, Zephyr's hate-speech prevalence estimate matches the gold rate exactly while its class-conditional errors are large in both directions.
• Score: 0.11280931253550518
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM annotators are increasingly used in computational social science (CSS), but it is unclear whether their alignment-shaped errors preserve the empirical conclusions a researcher would report. We audit three open-source 7B instruction-tuned models (Zephyr, Mistral-Instruct, Qwen2.5-Instruct) across six TweetEval tasks under four prompt conditions (72 cells) and find that social-desirability failures do not run in a single direction. Zephyr exhibits leniency bias, systematically under-applying harmful labels (offensive language: false benign rate 0.729, false alarm rate 0.031). Mistral and Qwen exhibit overcorrection, over-applying the same labels (Mistral hate-speech FAR = 0.604). All three models exhibit neutrality bias on abortion stance, underestimating opposition prevalence by 24 to 40 percentage points and inflating the neutral label. None of the four prompting interventions we test (neutral, safety framing, depersonalized, chain-of-thought) corrects these failures across models; safety framing can worsen stance distortion. Strikingly, Zephyr's hate-speech prevalence estimate matches the gold rate exactly while its class-conditional errors are large in both directions, an accidental cancellation that misleads aggregate validation. We translate these patterns into a three-part taxonomy with diagnostic FBR/FAR signatures and a lightweight gold-sample validation protocol. The headline for trustworthy CSS: a model that looks calibrated on aggregate metrics can still flip the substantive empirical conclusion a researcher would report.

Related papers

• TTPO: Test-Time Policy Optimization [53.81524570216593]
  Test-Time Policy Optimization (TTPO) is an asymmetric objective that distills agreeing rollouts via OPSD and penalizes disagreeing rollouts with Grouped RL.<n>We show that TTPO matches label-supervised OPSD on five competition-level benchmarks, raises Qwen3-1.7B from 38.0% to 45.2% in TTT, yields +25.2% to +36.4% without thinking, and shows strong cross-task generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T17:58:10Z)
• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act? [2.3004655342211078]
  AgentFairBench is a cheap, reproducible, multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in the actions of LLM agents.<n>It spans three regulator-anchored domains: hiring, lending, and medical triage.<n>A NumPy-only harness computes counterfactual flip rate, mean absolute score difference (MASD), action-rate disparity, and tool-invocation disparity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T13:50:26Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• Knowing but Not Correcting: Routine Task Requests Suppress Factual Correction in LLMs [26.062372963777452]
  LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct.<n>We term this failure mode emphcorrection suppression and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models.<n> Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T10:04:39Z)
• Verbal Confidence Saturation in 3-9B Open-Weight Instruction-Tuned LLMs: A Pre-Registered Psychometric Validity Screen [0.0]
  We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria.<n>We found Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity.<n> Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T04:45:21Z)
• CoVerRL: Breaking the Consensus Trap in Label-Free Reasoning via Generator-Verifier Co-Evolution [52.691495954442985]
  CoVerRL is a framework where a single model alternates between generator and verifier roles, with each capability bootstrapping the other.<n> Experiments across Qwen and Llama model families demonstrate that CoVerRL outperforms label-free baselines by 4.7-5.9% on mathematical reasoning benchmarks.<n>Self-verification accuracy improves from around 55% to over 85%, confirming that both capabilities genuinely co-evolve.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T14:38:55Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• Parrot: Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth -- A Sycophancy Robustness Benchmark for LLMs [0.0]
  PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth) is a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy under social pressure exerted on users.<n>We evaluate 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T13:01:28Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• Handling Imbalanced Pseudolabels for Vision-Language Models with Concept Alignment and Confusion-Aware Calibrated Margin [56.37346003683629]
  Adapting vision-language models (VLMs) to downstream tasks with pseudolabels has gained increasing attention.<n>A major obstacle is that the pseudolabels generated by VLMs tend to be imbalanced, leading to inferior performance.<n>We propose a novel framework incorporating concept alignment and confusion-aware margin mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-04T10:24:34Z)
• Emulated Disalignment: Safety Alignment for Large Language Models May Backfire! [65.06450319194454]
  Large language models (LLMs) undergo safety alignment to ensure safe conversations with humans. This paper introduces a training-free attack method capable of reversing safety alignment. We name this method emulated disalignment (ED) because sampling from this contrastive distribution provably emulates the result of fine-tuning to minimize a safety reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:16:51Z)

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.