跳到主要內容
AI News HubLIVE
來源內容 · 翻譯待補全2 分鐘閱讀

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

文章摘要

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源摘要,待恢復後補全翻譯: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'…

來源arXiv Computational Linguistics作者: William Guey, Pierrick Bougault, Wei Zhang, Vitor D. de Moura, Jos\'e O. Gomes
待翻譯:Bias Audits Detect Bias but Disagree on Ranking: Evidence from Ten Instruments and Ten Frontier Models
報告錯誤

更正渠道尚未開通,可先複製下方文章資訊留存。

查看更正說明
直接讀正文

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源正文,待恢復後補全翻譯。

[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?)

展開要點與分析

文章情報

工程師進階

要點

  • AI 服務暫時不可用,系統已先保留來源內容與降級元數據。
  • 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…

要點與分析由自動化流程生成,可能有誤,請結合原始來源核實。