Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research demonstrates how the specific format of response constraints—such as forced choice versus open-ended generation—significantly alters measured gender bias and ranking orders in large language models. The study underscores that evaluation metrics are not static but depend heavily on the interaction between prompt structure and model alignment with human distributions. Consequently, robust AI assessment requires multi-format testing to avoid misleading conclusions derived from a single output style.
Sources coveringarXiv, Quantum Zeitgeist
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Effects of Answer Format Variation on Gender Bias in Large Language Models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.17516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Gender bias or other social biases in large language models (LLMs) are frequently evaluated with question answering or survey benchmarks where the LLM needs to give a response in a predefined answer format. It is well known in survey science that the answer format has a substantial impact on answers, just as LLMs are sensitive to the prompt wording. However, to our knowledge it has not been studied yet how changes in answer format impact the measurement of gender bias in LLMs and their alignment with human response distributions. We evaluate three instruction-tuned models on the BBQ benchmark and OpinionQA survey data across closed-ended, Likert-scaled and open-ended formats, comparing bias measurement and distributional alignment under otherwise identical conditions. We find that answer format does substantially alter measured outcomes, including reversals in order rankings. These differences arise because each format elicits distinct response behaviours, such as forced-choice selection, scale-based distributions and refusal in free-text generation. Our findings highlight the importance of treating answer format as a substantive component of LLM evaluation and motivate multi-format designs for more robust model assessment.

Abstract:Gender bias or other social biases in large language models (LLMs) are frequently evaluated with question answering or survey benchmarks where the LLM needs to give a response in a predefined answer format. It is well known in survey science that the answer format has a substantial impact on answers, just as LLMs are sensitive to the prompt wording. However, to our knowledge it has not been studied yet how changes in answer format impact the measurement of gender bias in LLMs and their alignment with human response distributions. We evaluate three instruction-tuned models on the BBQ benchmark and OpinionQA survey data across closed-ended, Likert-scaled and open-ended formats, comparing bias measurement and distributional alignment under otherwise identical conditions. We find that answer format does substantially alter measured outcomes, including reversals in order rankings. These differences arise because each format elicits distinct response behaviours, such as forced-choice selection, scale-based distributions and refusal in free-text generation. Our findings highlight the importance of treating answer format as a substantive component of LLM evaluation and motivate multi-format designs for more robust model assessment.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2608.17516 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2608.17516v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.17516 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 274 words

Related coverage