aiqbench analysis
This research exposes a critical bias in LLM-as-a-judge frameworks, revealing that demographic prompting systematically shifts model outputs toward majority group perspectives while marginalizing minority voices. The study identifies instruction tuning as a key driver of this asymmetry, particularly on sensitive tasks like offensiveness detection, where intersectional profiles exacerbate the harm to underrepresented groups. For developers relying on automated evaluation metrics, these findings underscore the necessity of auditing judge models for demographic skew before deploying them in high-stakes subjective assessments.
LLM-as-a-Demographic: Whom Sociodemographic Prompting Helps, and Whom It Hurts
arXiv:2609.00222v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.00222 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.00222v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00222 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 · 285 words
Related coverage

Unpacking AI safety for enterprises
Cohere · Jun 4, 2026

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026

Georgia Tech AI Safety Initiative Retrospective 2025-2026
LessWrong · Jul 24, 2026

Cracking the Data Science Case Study Interview
Analytics Vidhya · Jul 26, 2026