analiza aiqbench
This research introduces a novel "bias depth" metric to distinguish between stable, pretraining-inherited preferences (deep biases) and transient artifacts caused by specific prompt wording (shallow biases). The study reveals that deep biases are significantly more resistant to removal via standard fine-tuning or debiasing techniques compared to their shallow counterparts. This distinction is critical for developers aiming to create robust language models that generalize across diverse scenarios without relying on fragile prompt engineering.
Deep and shallow biases in language models
arXiv:2609.09901v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models often repeatedly select the same answer even when many alternatives are plausible. Prior work treats this concentration as bias, but it does not distinguish stable model preferences from responses that depend on a particular prompt wording. We introduce a bias depth score that measures both how strongly a model prefers its top answer under direct prompting and whether that answer survives scenario reframing. Across 4,442 opinion prompts and four large language models, only about a quarter of the concentrated preferences survive reframing. We call these persistent cases Deep biases, and the remaining prompt-dependent cases Shallow biases. Our results show that Deep biases are more often inherited from pretraining and preserved through SFT. Under both continued fine-tuning and prompt-based debiasing for diversity, Deep biases are consistently harder to remove than Shallow biases. Bias depth therefore separates stable learned biases from prompt-wording artifacts that single-prompt metrics conflate. Code, models, and data are available at deepbias.github.io.
Abstract:Large language models often repeatedly select the same answer even when many alternatives are plausible. Prior work treats this concentration as bias, but it does not distinguish stable model preferences from responses that depend on a particular prompt wording. We introduce a bias depth score that measures both how strongly a model prefers its top answer under direct prompting and whether that answer survives scenario reframing. Across 4,442 opinion prompts and four large language models, only about a quarter of the concentrated preferences survive reframing. We call these persistent cases Deep biases, and the remaining prompt-dependent cases Shallow biases. Our results show that Deep biases are more often inherited from pretraining and preserved through SFT. Under both continued fine-tuning and prompt-based debiasing for diversity, Deep biases are consistently harder to remove than Shallow biases. Bias depth therefore separates stable learned biases from prompt-wording artifacts that single-prompt metrics conflate. Code, models, and data are available at this http URL.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.09901 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.09901v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09901 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 253 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · 8 oct. 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · 21 sept. 2026
Large Language Models Explore by Latent Distilling
arXiv · 23 iul. 2026
EADC: Evaluation of Advanced and Deep-level Compliance in Large Language Models
arXiv · 24 sept. 2026