Difference-in-Differences on a Censored Rating Scale Can Manufacture an Effect: Evidence from a Pre-Registered LLM-Judge Audit

Audits of LLM judges certify a bias by contrasting matched conditions, and the strongest designs difference twice: a within-item contrast between two candidate responses, differenced again across a manipulated attribute, read off a bounded rating scale. We show that this endpoint is not identified on the scale that reports it. Each term of the double difference is censored by its own share, so the observed statistic confounds differential preference with differential attenuation: a severity shift common to both responses manufactures an interaction whenever the two censor it unequally, as unequal distances from the bounds make them, exactly where good stimuli place them. We exhibit the failure inside a pre-registered audit of a frozen pedagogy judge, sealed before the first of its 990 calls. The registered primary endpoint, the effect of a stated learner profile on the judge's scaffolding preference, is null: $+0.085$ points (95\% BCa $[-0.167, +0.353]$, $p = 0.684$). The audit's one nominally significant interaction, $+0.378$ ($p = 0.002$), is not identified as preference: a construction containing zero differential preference reproduces 79 to 85\% of it from the observed severity shift and the scale floor alone. We derive the mechanism in closed form and show that its contribution is measurable from an audit's own ratings.

Beyond Surface Cues: Disentangling Sociocultural Signals in Multilingual LLMs

Multilingual LLM outputs can vary across sociocultural contexts. However, evidence of cultural grounding can be misleading: identity labels may be inferred from explicit or indirect textual cues, while names and wording can reveal the source language. Treating all these signals as evidence of cultural grounding may obscure potential biases. We present a human-validated, multi-agent audit that separates three questions: whether outputs reproduce social biases, whether identity groups are represented differently, and whether outputs reflect cross-cultural patterns. The study analyzes 89,253 outputs from 12 LLMs in English, French, and Chinese, spanning 18 occupations and three task conditions. We find that bias representation varies systematically across languages and tasks. Removing direct identity cues sharply reduces identity-label prediction in English and Chinese, but has a much smaller effect in French. Across all language-genre settings, the cultural context associated with the source language receives the highest average relevance score, with moderate agreement between automated and human ratings. However, the ability to identify the source language drops substantially after translation and again after masking names. Without these controls, multilingual audits may mistake surface cues for cultural understanding, leading to misleading conclusions about cross-cultural variation and bias. Our audit offers a practical framework for separating such shortcuts from more meaningful cross-cultural patterns.

Fidelity Preference, Not Demographic Preference: A Pixel-Level Attribute-Sensitivity Audit of Image Aesthetic/Preference Scorers

Text-to-image systems use learned aesthetic scorers to filter training data and guide generation, but whether these scores encode demographic attributes as objective quality is unclear. We audit four scorers (LAION-Aesthetics, PickScore, ImageReward, HPSv2) using pixel-level interventions on skin tone and body type in synthetic and real images. Our key finding is that along skin-lightness, the dominant effect is fidelity preference: unaltered images score highest, and perturbations in either direction are penalized (inverted-U). Placebo arms show this penalty is not an artifact of the skin operator, as applying the same CIELAB L* shift to non-skin regions yields similar penalty magnitudes. However, the penalty is operator-dependent and holds for all operators only for LAION-Aes. Critically, audits on synthetic images alone are misleading: LAION-Aes shows strong preference for darker skin on synthetic faces, but on 1470 real faces the preference reverses and becomes much smaller, and amplification becomes non-significant. Across scorers, synthetic results do not transfer -- reversing for LAION-Aes and HPSv2, attenuating for PickScore. We contribute a reproducible benchmark with artifact control and synthetic/real cross-validation, and an auditability criterion for pixel-level causal isolation (valid for skin tone, not for body type due to deformation). Population-stratified analysis shows fidelity-penalty asymmetry is not robust across groups after FDR correction except for HPSv2. Our findings show naive synthetic audits misjudge bias direction and magnitude, and only within-image causal isolation on real data can distinguish true demographic bias from fidelity preference.

Can LLMs Hire Fairly? Racial Bias in Resume Screening

We audit fourteen mainstream large language models (LLMs) for hiring discrimination using the paired-resume methodology of Kline, Rose, and Walters (2022). The sole 2023-vintage model reproduces the pro-White callback gap documented in field experiments on labor market discrimination ($+2.12$ pp, significant at the 1\% level). Every model released in 2024 or after shows either a null gap or a significant pro-Black reversal (up to $-3.01$ pp). The same pattern holds on the gender axis. Based on 24,024 paired postings per model across 14 models, our results document a reversal in the direction of algorithmic hiring bias across model generations.

Epistemic Injustice in Language Models: An Audit of Pretraining Filters and Guardrails

Modern language models rely on pretraining filters to remove undesirable content from training corpora and inference-time guardrails to suppress undesirable outputs during deployment. In this paper, we examine how these filtering and moderation decisions produce forms of epistemic erasure and reveal tensions both across automated systems and between these systems and human judgment. We audit four pretraining filters and three inference-time guardrails on Common Crawl sentences containing gender and regional-origin mentions, together with a manually annotated subset of 500 sentences. Our analysis shows that filtering and guardrail decisions are strongly associated with blocklist-based lexical cues, while frequently failing to flag content containing private information or explicit hate speech. At the same time, marginalized groups, particularly transgender people, women, and Central Americans, are significantly over-flagged across systems. Human annotators, by contrast, would retain 88.5\% of filter-flagged and 91.3\% of guardrail-flagged content, often recognizing representational harms arising from tensions of content removal that current systems fail to capture. Taken together, our findings document a form of epistemic erasure in which mentions of marginalized groups are disproportionately removed before pretraining and additionally suppressed again at inference time.

Mapping how LLMs debate societal issues when shadowing human personality traits, sociodemographics and social media behavior

Large Language Models (LLMs) can strongly shape social discourse, yet datasets investigating how LLM outputs vary across controlled social and contextual prompting remain sparse. Cognitive Digital Shadows (CDS) is a 190,000-record synthetic corpus supporting analyses of LLM-generated discourse. Each CDS record is generated by one of 19 LLMs, prompted to shadow either a human persona or an AI-assistant role. CDS contains LLM responses on 4 controversial societal topics: vaccines/healthcare, social media disinformation, the gender gap in science, and STEM stereotypes. Persona-conditioned records encode 17 sociodemographic and psychological attributes, providing data linking LLMs' prompts, language, stances and reasoning. Texts are validated for topic anchoring and can support emotional analyses via interpretable NLP (e.g. textual forma mentis networks). CDS is enriched by a pooling platform with user-friendly dashboards, enabling easy, interactive group-level comparisons of emotional and semantic framing across personas, topics and models. The CDS prompting framework supports future audits of LLMs' bias, social sensitivity and alignment.