aiqbench analysis
This study introduces a reference-based method for auditing bias in large language models by analyzing shifts in hidden-state representations rather than relying solely on costly output benchmarks. By encoding sentences relative to fixed anchors, the technique effectively detects internal representational changes that traditional methods might miss, offering a significantly more compute-efficient alternative for monitoring model drift during fine-tuning.
Reference-Based Bias Detection in LLMs via Relative Representations of Hidden States
arXiv:2609.10060v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing bias auditing methods typically rely on model outputs, requiring costly benchmarks or judge models and potentially missing internal shifts that never appear in generated text. We propose a reference-based method that audits bias in hidden-state representations across related model variants, for example before and after fine-tuning. Because fine-tuning reshapes representation geometry, absolute hidden states are not directly comparable, so we encode each sentence by its similarities to a fixed set of anchor sentences, yielding relative representations in a shared comparison space. There we measure how target groups shift in their association with positive and negative attributes, a quantity we call the Representational Bias Shift $\Delta B$. Across three model families and the WildGuardMix, DecodingTrust and ToxiGen benchmarks, $\Delta B$ correlates with output-level bias change in 15 of the 18 settings we test, reaching $|r| = 0.84$ ($p < 0.001$) under full fine-tuning and becoming more model-dependent under parameter-efficient adaptation. Thresholding $\Delta B$ detects checkpoints whose bias increased with ROC AUC between $0.65$ and $0.99$, and on WildGuardMix and DecodingTrust it separates them better than a SEAT-based baseline for all three families. $\Delta B$ is also stable under changes to the anchor set, attribute sets and target templates. Our method requires no task-specific evaluation data and audits a model in about three minutes, using $3$-$50\times$ less compute than the output-level benchmarks considered here. We view it as complementary to output-based auditing rather than a replacement for it.
Abstract:Existing bias auditing methods typically rely on model outputs, requiring costly benchmarks or judge models and potentially missing internal shifts that never appear in generated text. We propose a reference-based method that audits bias in hidden-state representations across related model variants, for example before and after fine-tuning. Because fine-tuning reshapes representation geometry, absolute hidden states are not directly comparable, so we encode each sentence by its similarities to a fixed set of anchor sentences, yielding relative representations in a shared comparison space. There we measure how target groups shift in their association with positive and negative attributes, a quantity we call the Representational Bias Shift $\Delta B$. Across three model families and the WildGuardMix, DecodingTrust and ToxiGen benchmarks, $\Delta B$ correlates with output-level bias change in 15 of the 18 settings we test, reaching $|r| = 0.84$ ($p < 0.001$) under full fine-tuning and becoming more model-dependent under parameter-efficient adaptation. Thresholding $\Delta B$ detects checkpoints whose bias increased with ROC AUC between $0.65$ and $0.99$, and on WildGuardMix and DecodingTrust it separates them better than a SEAT-based baseline for all three families. $\Delta B$ is also stable under changes to the anchor set, attribute sets and target templates. Our method requires no task-specific evaluation data and audits a model in about three minutes, using $3$-$50\times$ less compute than the output-level benchmarks considered here. We view it as complementary to output-based auditing rather than a replacement for it.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.10060 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.10060v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.10060 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 · 331 words
Related coverage

Reflections on unlearning and inoculation
LessWrong · Sep 20, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Evaluating task vectors, unlearning and inoculation
LessWrong · Sep 20, 2026
Reasons to believe current AI models are conscious
LessWrong · Jul 17, 2026