跳到主要内容
AI News HubLIVE
来源内容 · 翻译待补全2 分钟阅读

待翻译:Bias Audits Detect Bias but Disagree on Ranking: Evidence from Ten Instruments and Ten Frontier Models

文章摘要

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源摘要,待恢复后补全翻译:arXiv:2609.15995v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Emerging AI regulation mandates bias audits of high-risk systems, and audit scores are beginning to be used to rank models. Both uses assume different audit tools measure the same thing well enough to compare. We test that assumption directly, running ten extrinsic audit instruments over a shared panel of ten frontier models through one pooled inference gateway, first on occupational gender bias, then on age and socioeconomic status. Detection succeeds while ranking fails. Eight of ten tools detect bias with confidence intervals clear of zero; two widely cited direct-probe benchmarks are saturated because frontier models now answer neutrally. But cross-tool rank agreement is indistinguishable from chance (Kendall'…

来源arXiv Computational Linguistics作者: William Guey, Pierrick Bougault, Wei Zhang, Vitor D. de Moura, Jos\'e O. Gomes
待翻译:Bias Audits Detect Bias but Disagree on Ranking: Evidence from Ten Instruments and Ten Frontier Models
报告错误

纠错通道尚未开通,可先复制下方文章信息留存。

查看更正说明
直接读正文

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源正文,待恢复后补全翻译。

[Submitted on 9 Jul 2026] Title:Bias Audits Detect Bias but Disagree on Ranking: Evidence from Ten Instruments and Ten Frontier Models View a PDF of the paper titled Bias Audits Detect Bias but Disagree on Ranking: Evidence from Ten Instruments and Ten Frontier Models, by William Guey and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Emerging AI regulation mandates bias audits of high-risk systems, and audit scores are beginning to be used to rank models. Both uses assume different audit tools measure the same thing well enough to compare. We test that assumption directly, running ten extrinsic audit instruments over a shared panel of ten frontier models through one pooled inference gateway, first on occupational gender bias, then on age and socioeconomic status. Detection succeeds while ranking fails. Eight of ten tools detect bias with confidence intervals clear of zero; two widely cited direct-probe benchmarks are saturated because frontier models now answer neutrally. But cross-tool rank agreement is indistinguishable from chance (Kendall's W=0.07, p=0.83). A positive control with six deliberately weaker models separates two explanations: within-tool reliability recovers once the panel spans real capability gaps, yet cross-tool ranking never recovers, which points to the tools measuring different constructs rather than one construct noisily. Even the direction of bias splits by audit format: forced-choice decision tools mostly over-correct (toward women, and toward working-class candidates in 273 of 278 hiring decisions), while free generation and default coreference stay stereotype-congruent. The pattern replicates on socioeconomic status; an apparent ranking agreement on age dissolves under the paper's own tool-inclusion rules. The practical message: a single audit can detect bias and estimate its direction within its own operationalization, but no single audit supports ranking one model against another. All raw responses, code, and the analysis that recomputes every reported number from source are available at this https URL. Comments: 18 pages, 7 figures, 4 tables. Code and data: this https URL Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL) Cite as: arXiv:2609.15995 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2609.15995v1 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15995 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: William Guey [view email] [v1] Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:38:31 UTC (370 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Bias Audits Detect Bias but Disagree on Ranking: Evidence from Ten Instruments and Ten Frontier Models, by William Guey and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-09 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators 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. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

展开要点与分析

文章情报

工程师进阶

要点

  • AI 服务暂时不可用,系统已先保留来源内容与降级元数据。
  • arXiv:2609.15995v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Emerging AI regulation mandates bias audits of high-risk systems, and audit scores are beginning to be used to rank models. Both us…

要点与分析由自动化流程生成,可能有误,请结合原始来源核实。