EQUATOR: A Deterministic Framework for Evaluating LLM Reasoning with Open-Ended Questions. # v1.0.0-beta

Despite the remarkable coherence of Large Language Models (LLMs), existing evaluation methods often suffer from fluency bias and rely heavily on multiple-choice formats, making it difficult to assess factual accuracy and complex reasoning effectively. LLMs thus frequently generate factually inaccurate responses, especially in complex reasoning tasks, highlighting two prominent challenges: (1) the inadequacy of existing methods to evaluate reasoning and factual accuracy effectively, and (2) the reliance on human evaluators for nuanced judgment, as illustrated by Williams and Huckle (2024)[1], who found manual grading indispensable despite automated grading advancements. To address evaluation gaps in open-ended reasoning tasks, we introduce the EQUATOR Evaluator (Evaluation of Question Answering Thoroughness in Open-ended Reasoning). This framework combines deterministic scoring with a focus on factual accuracy and robust reasoning assessment. Using a vector database, EQUATOR pairs open-ended questions with human-evaluated answers, enabling more precise and scalable evaluations. In practice, EQUATOR significantly reduces reliance on human evaluators for scoring and improves scalability compared to Williams and Huckle's (2004)[1] methods. Our results demonstrate that this framework significantly outperforms traditional multiple-choice evaluations while maintaining high accuracy standards. Additionally, we introduce an automated evaluation process leveraging smaller, locally hosted LLMs. We used LLaMA 3.2B, running on the Ollama binaries to streamline our assessments. This work establishes a new paradigm for evaluating LLM performance, emphasizing factual accuracy and reasoning ability, and provides a robust methodological foundation for future research.

ViLBias: A Framework for Bias Detection using Linguistic and Visual Cues

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) opens new avenues for addressing complex challenges in multimodal content analysis, particularly in biased news detection. This study introduces ViLBias, a framework that leverages state of the art LLMs and VLMs to detect linguistic and visual biases in news content, addressing the limitations of traditional text-only approaches. Our contributions include a novel dataset pairing textual content with accompanying visuals from diverse news sources and a hybrid annotation framework, combining LLM-based annotations with human review to enhance quality while reducing costs and improving scalability. We evaluate the efficacy of LLMs and VLMs in identifying biases, revealing their strengths in detecting subtle framing and text-visual inconsistencies. Empirical analysis demonstrates that incorporating visual cues alongside text enhances bias detection accuracy by 3 to 5 %, showcasing the complementary strengths of LLMs in generative reasoning and Small Language Models (SLMs) in classification. This study offers a comprehensive exploration of LLMs and VLMs as tools for detecting multimodal biases in news content, highlighting both their potential and limitations. Our research paves the way for more robust, scalable, and nuanced approaches to media bias detection, contributing to the broader field of natural language processing and multimodal analysis. (The data and code will be made available for research purposes).

Fact or Fiction? Can LLMs be Reliable Annotators for Political Truths?

Political misinformation poses significant challenges to democratic processes, shaping public opinion and trust in media. Manual fact-checking methods face issues of scalability and annotator bias, while machine learning models require large, costly labelled datasets. This study investigates the use of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) as reliable annotators for detecting political factuality in news articles. Using open-source LLMs, we create a politically diverse dataset, labelled for bias through LLM-generated annotations. These annotations are validated by human experts and further evaluated by LLM-based judges to assess the accuracy and reliability of the annotations. Our approach offers a scalable and robust alternative to traditional fact-checking, enhancing transparency and public trust in media.

Desert Camels and Oil Sheikhs: Arab-Centric Red Teaming of Frontier LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used but raise ethical concerns due to embedded social biases. This study examines LLM biases against Arabs versus Westerners across eight domains, including women's rights, terrorism, and anti-Semitism and assesses model resistance to perpetuating these biases. To this end, we create two datasets: one to evaluate LLM bias toward Arabs versus Westerners and another to test model safety against prompts that exaggerate negative traits ("jailbreaks"). We evaluate six LLMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, LlaMA 3.1 (8B & 405B), Mistral 7B, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. We find 79% of cases displaying negative biases toward Arabs, with LlaMA 3.1-405B being the most biased. Our jailbreak tests reveal GPT-4o as the most vulnerable, despite being an optimized version, followed by LlaMA 3.1-8B and Mistral 7B. All LLMs except Claude exhibit attack success rates above 87% in three categories. We also find Claude 3.5 Sonnet the safest, but it still displays biases in seven of eight categories. Despite being an optimized version of GPT4, We find GPT-4o to be more prone to biases and jailbreaks, suggesting optimization flaws. Our findings underscore the pressing need for more robust bias mitigation strategies and strengthened security measures in LLMs.

Exploring Bias and Prediction Metrics to Characterise the Fairness of Machine Learning for Equity-Centered Public Health Decision-Making: A Narrative Review

Background: The rapid advancement of Machine Learning (ML) represents novel opportunities to enhance public health research, surveillance, and decision-making. However, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of algorithmic bias -- systematic errors in predicted population health outcomes -- resulting from the public health application of ML. The objective of this narrative review is to explore the types of bias generated by ML and quantitative metrics to assess these biases. Methods: We performed search on PubMed, MEDLINE, IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Digital Library, Science Direct, and Springer Nature. We used keywords to identify studies describing types of bias and metrics to measure these in the domain of ML and public and population health published in English between 2008 and 2023, inclusive. Results: A total of 72 articles met the inclusion criteria. Our review identified the commonly described types of bias and quantitative metrics to assess these biases from an equity perspective. Conclusion: The review will help formalize the evaluation framework for ML on public health from an equity perspective.

A Comprehensive Review of Recommender Systems: Transitioning from Theory to Practice

Recommender Systems (RS) play an integral role in enhancing user experiences by providing personalized item suggestions. This survey reviews the progress in RS inclusively from 2017 to 2024, effectively connecting theoretical advances with practical applications. We explore the development from traditional RS techniques like content-based and collaborative filtering to advanced methods involving deep learning, graph-based models, reinforcement learning, and large language models. We also discuss specialized systems such as context-aware, review-based, and fairness-aware RS. The primary goal of this survey is to bridge theory with practice. It addresses challenges across various sectors, including e-commerce, healthcare, and finance, emphasizing the need for scalable, real-time, and trustworthy solutions. Through this survey, we promote stronger partnerships between academic research and industry practices. The insights offered by this survey aim to guide industry professionals in optimizing RS deployment and to inspire future research directions, especially in addressing emerging technological and societal trends

Practical Guide for Causal Pathways and Sub-group Disparity Analysis

In this study, we introduce the application of causal disparity analysis to unveil intricate relationships and causal pathways between sensitive attributes and the targeted outcomes within real-world observational data. Our methodology involves employing causal decomposition analysis to quantify and examine the causal interplay between sensitive attributes and outcomes. We also emphasize the significance of integrating heterogeneity assessment in causal disparity analysis to gain deeper insights into the impact of sensitive attributes within specific sub-groups on outcomes. Our two-step investigation focuses on datasets where race serves as the sensitive attribute. The results on two datasets indicate the benefit of leveraging causal analysis and heterogeneity assessment not only for quantifying biases in the data but also for disentangling their influences on outcomes. We demonstrate that the sub-groups identified by our approach to be affected the most by disparities are the ones with the largest ML classification errors. We also show that grouping the data only based on a sensitive attribute is not enough, and through these analyses, we can find sub-groups that are directly affected by disparities. We hope that our findings will encourage the adoption of such methodologies in future ethical AI practices and bias audits, fostering a more equitable and fair technological landscape.

BEADs: Bias Evaluation Across Domains

Recent improvements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced natural language processing (NLP) applications. However, these models can also inherit and perpetuate biases from their training data. Addressing this issue is crucial, yet many existing datasets do not offer evaluation across diverse NLP tasks. To tackle this, we introduce the Bias Evaluations Across Domains (BEADs) dataset, designed to support a wide range of NLP tasks, including text classification, bias entity recognition, bias quantification, and benign language generation. BEADs uses AI-driven annotation combined with experts' verification to provide reliable labels. This method overcomes the limitations of existing datasets that typically depend on crowd-sourcing, expert-only annotations with limited bias evaluations, or unverified AI labeling. Our empirical analysis shows that BEADs is effective in detecting and reducing biases across different language models, with smaller models fine-tuned on BEADs often outperforming LLMs in bias classification tasks. However, these models may still exhibit biases towards certain demographics. Fine-tuning LLMs with our benign language data also reduces biases while preserving the models' knowledge. Our findings highlight the importance of comprehensive bias evaluation and the potential of targeted fine-tuning for reducing the bias of LLMs. We are making BEADs publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/shainar/BEAD Warning: This paper contains examples that may be considered offensive.

MBIAS: Mitigating Bias in Large Language Models While Retaining Context

In addressing the critical need for safety in Large Language Models (LLMs), it is crucial to ensure that the outputs are not only safe but also retain their contextual accuracy. Many existing LLMs are safe fine-tuned either with safety demonstrations, or rely only on adversarial testing. While able to get safe outputs, they often risk losing contextual meaning as they mitigate bias and toxicity. In response, we present MBIAS, a LLM framework instruction fine-tuned on a custom dataset specifically designed for safety interventions. MBIAS aims to address the significant issues of bias and toxicity in LLMs generations that typically manifest as underrepresentation or negative portrayals across various demographics, including inappropriate linguistic mentions and biased content in social media. We experiment on MBIAS for safety interventions using various configurations, and demonstrate more than a 30\% reduction in overall bias and toxicity while successfully retaining key information. Additionally, a demographic analysis on an out-of-distribution test set confirms the robustness of our approach, with reductions in bias and toxicity exceeding 90\% across various demographics. The dataset and instruction fine-tuned MBIAS are made available to the research community at https://huggingface.co/newsmediabias/MBIAS.

Review-based Recommender Systems: A Survey of Approaches, Challenges and Future Perspectives

Recommender systems play a pivotal role in helping users navigate an overwhelming selection of products and services. On online platforms, users have the opportunity to share feedback in various modes, including numerical ratings, textual reviews, and likes/dislikes. Traditional recommendation systems rely on users explicit ratings or implicit interactions (e.g. likes, clicks, shares, saves) to learn user preferences and item characteristics. Beyond these numerical ratings, textual reviews provide insights into users fine-grained preferences and item features. Analyzing these reviews is crucial for enhancing the performance and interpretability of personalized recommendation results. In recent years, review-based recommender systems have emerged as a significant sub-field in this domain. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of the developments in review-based recommender systems over recent years, highlighting the importance of reviews in recommender systems, as well as the challenges associated with extracting features from reviews and integrating them into ratings. Specifically, we present a categorization of these systems and summarize the state-of-the-art methods, analyzing their unique features, effectiveness, and limitations. Finally, we propose potential directions for future research, including the integration of multi-modal data, multi-criteria rating information, and ethical considerations.