Grammatical error annotation in Chinese learner writing requires labels that are both consistent and linguistically meaningful. This paper proposes a layered scheme linking computational Chinese grammatical error correction (CGEC) with pedagogical error analysis. The scheme first identifies character- and punctuation-level orthographic errors, labeling them by edit operation and subtype. Other errors receive a three-layer core label combining edit operation, linguistic domain, and part of speech, with optional Chinese-specific extensions for aspect, modality, comparison, argument structure, and complements. Drawing on CGEC resources, learner-error taxonomies, and Mandarin grammar, the taxonomy is evaluated through a coverage analysis of automatically extracted MuCGEC edits and a preliminary consistency study in which five large language models apply it to a sample. The results support the layered approach while identifying category boundaries requiring further refinement.
Varsha Ramineni, Hossein A. Rahmani, Jerome Ramos +2cs.AI
LLMs exhibit social biases that can produce inaccurate and discriminatory inferences, posing risks in high-stakes applications. While prior work has made progress in measuring and mitigating bias, it largely focuses on final outputs of models, with limited understanding of the mechanisms that produce biased outcomes. Recent advances in LLM reasoning offers a new lens for investigating bias, yet the link between reasoning and bias remains poorly understood. Existing approaches focus primarily on final answer correctness or explicitly biased language, overlooking different behaviours in reasoning that can drive biased outcomes. We introduce BiasTrace, an annotation scheme for labelling reasoning behaviours in model-generated traces and linking them to biased outcomes. BiasTrace captures bias-specific behaviours (e.g., unsupported demographic assumptions) as well as general reasoning patterns that may implicitly contribute to bias (e.g. overthinking). We apply BiasTrace to reasoning traces in bias-sensitive contexts, scaled using validated LLM-as-a-judge methods, producing a large annotated dataset. Our analysis shows that biased outputs often stem from subtle reasoning behaviours rather than explicitly biased language, and that reasoning-level annotations improve bias detection. We further show that BiasTrace behaviours can be exploited for inference-time mitigation. These findings underscore the importance of examining a broader range of reasoning patterns to better understand bias in LLMs.