Benevolent Bias in Multi-Turn Human-Agent Dialogue

Bias in human-agent interaction can manifest not only through hostile language but also as benevolent bias, whereby unequal treatment hides behind a warm, positive tone. To make it detectable, we operationalise benevolent bias along two dimensions, tone and treatment, yielding three classes: neutral support, overt bias, and benevolent bias. Building on these definitions, we construct BENEVDIAL, a class-balanced corpus of 362,880 multi-turn support dialogues spanning user and agent demographics, roles, and generators, to support controlled evaluation. We then test two detector families on it: off-the-shelf safety detectors and prompted large language model (LLM) judges. Our results reveal a detection gap: off-the-shelf detectors reliably flag overt bias yet largely miss benevolent bias, while LLM judges catch more under more explicit detection criteria but increasingly misclassify neutral support as benevolent bias, and demographic context amplifies the false alarms. These findings suggest that fair monitoring of human-agent dialogue must look beyond surface cues to whether the agent's treatment is disparate.

Identifying Confusion Trends in Concept-based XAI for Multi-Label Classification

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) deployed in high-risk domains, such as healthcare and autonomous driving, must be not only accurate but also understandable to ensure user trust. In real-world computer vision tasks, these models often operate on complex images containing background noise and are heavily annotated. To make such models explainable, Concept-based Explainable AI (CXAI) methods need to be assessed for their applicability and problem-solving capacity. In this work, we explore CXAI use cases in multi-label classification by training two DNNs, VGG16 and ResNet50, on the 20 most annotated labels in the MS-COCO dataset (Microsoft Common Objects in Context). We apply two CXAI methods, CRP (Concept Relevance Propagation) and CRAFT (Concept Recursive Activation FacTorization), to generate concept-level explanations and investigate the overall evaluations. Our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) CXAI highlights learning weaknesses in DNNs, (2) higher concept distinctiveness reduces label and concept confusion, and (3) environmental concepts expose dataset-induced biases. Our results demonstrate the potential of CXAI to enhance the understanding of model generalizability and to diagnose bias instigated by the dataset.

BiasTrace: Linking Reasoning Behaviours to Biased Outputs in LLMs

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.

Subjective Multi-Bias Detection with Large Language Models

In this project, we delved into the pervasive challenge of bias detection within the text content. More specifically, our focus lies on the identification of subjective bias, a type of bias that introduces improper attitudes or portrays a statement at odds with the actual truth. The subjective bias can jeopardize the authenticity and reliability of texts, leading to misconceptions and potential social tensions, especially when expressed through offensive language. Following prior work [1], we tackled with three different types of subjective biases in text: (1) framing bias with the use of one-sided words or phrases containing a particular point of view; (2) epistemological bias which includes subtle linguistic features that can affect the believability of the texts; (3) demographic bias with word/phrase usage under presuppositions of a particular demographic factor (i.e., gender or religion). In terms of the data we utilize, the input consists of texts that may harbor subjective biases. The output is a classification or annotation that reveals the presence or absence of such biases within the provided content. More specifically, we detected three different types of multi-span biases in corpus WIKIBIAS [2] with more than 4,000 sentence pairs from Wikipedia edits. The data is labelled by bias type for span pairs with the following categories: (1) framing bias, (2) epistemological bias, (3) demographic bias, and (4) no bias. The project codes are released at https://github.com/HoningJade/LLM-Bias-Type-Classification.

Does Splitting a Triage Decision Across Agents Hide Bias or Help Catch It? A Multi-Agent Simulation Study of LLM-Based Resource Allocation Under Audit Capacity Constraints

Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias. Real deployments, however, rarely use a single agent: they use pipelines, with review steps meant to catch exactly this kind of failure. We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline (assessment, allocation, independent audit) instead of made and checked by one model alone. Using a synthetic disaster-triage simulator with paired cases that are clinically identical except for one demographic attribute, we run 192 episodes (2,304 resolved case pairs) on GPT-4o-mini comparing a single-agent control condition to a nine-agent pipeline under three independently varied pressure dimensions. We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions (6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.498). We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught: 30.0% of biased outcomes go entirely undetected, rising to 43.8% when the auditor is overloaded and falling to 18.4% when it is not. Decomposing this effect shows it is driven almost entirely by coverage (whether a case is reviewed at all, which collapses from 100.0% to 65.6% under load, p < 0.001) rather than by degraded judgment on the cases that are reviewed (81.6% vs. 85.7%, p = 1.000, direction reversed). A follow-up experiment shows that reordering the audit queue by estimated risk, rather than first-come-first-served, recovers most of the lost coverage under the same capacity constraint (65.6% to 91.7%, p = 0.028). We discuss the implications for any system that adds independent oversight to an LLM agent pipeline under resource constraints, and report the study's limitations honestly: one model, modest sample sizes, and no adversarial replication.

AutoJourn: Multi-Perspective Summarisation, Bias Detection and Bias Neutralisation for LLM-Generated News in Automated Journalism

We present AutoJourn, a demonstration system for multi-perspective news generation and bias-aware evaluation using large language models (LLMs). The system tackles three core challenges in responsible automated journalism: extracting diverse perspectives from unstructured social media discussions, generating summaries that preserve viewpoint diversity, and detecting or mitigating bias in AI-generated news. The pipeline integrates advanced prompt engineering with optional retrieval augmentation to produce semantically diverse perspective sets, a multi-perspective summarisation module that merges conflicting viewpoints into balanced summaries, and a bias analysis suite supporting sentence-level bias detection and type classification in the generated news article, and automatic neutralisation. Users can inspect perspective clusters, compare stance-specific summaries, generate news articles, and apply bias-aware rewrites directly in the interface. We evaluate each component with intrinsic metrics -- semantic diversity, summary quality, and bias reduction and show improvements over strong baselines while maintaining content fidelity. A live, publicly accessible demo accompanies the paper to facilitate reproducibility and further research on socially responsible automated journalism.

Inside the Unfair Judge: A Mechanistic Interpretability Account of LLM-as-Judge Bias

Existing studies of LLM-as-judge scoring bias work predominantly at the input-output level: they perturb inputs, measure score deltas, and propose prompt-level mitigations. We argue that the same biases admit a representation-level account in the judge's hidden state, complementary to the input-output view and operationally useful in ways it does not afford. We report three findings, across seven judges, seven bias types, and nine benchmarks. Geometry: baseline judging inputs occupy a tight activation manifold while biased inputs are displaced along a low-dimensional, type-specific subspace that sharpens with depth and is recovered consistently by three families of estimators. Causal control: steering hidden states along this subspace drives scoring in both directions, forward shifts reproducing biased scoring on clean inputs and reverse shifts restoring baseline scoring on biased ones, while matched-norm random directions produce shifts an order of magnitude smaller. Operational: a simple linear projection onto the same bias-direction features anticipates judge failures on three entirely unseen benchmarks, substantially outperforming text-based alternatives. Reading bias as activation geometry, rather than as input-output noise, unifies geometric structure, causal control, and operational prediction within a single framework. The project page is available at https://xzx34.github.io/unfair-judge/

Unraveling Machine Behavior by Multi-Level Bias Analysis and Detection: Methodology and Application to Computer Vision

This study investigates the presence and propagation of bias within Neural Networks through a comprehensive multi-level analysis spanning the learned latent space, layer activations, and the network's parameters. Based on this taxonomy, we propose three bias detection approaches: 1) SpaceBias (new method), which characterizes the latent space prior to the final classification layer using neighbor-probability distributions and quantifies bias with the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the per-group distributions. 2) ActivationBias (extension of the existing method InsideBias), which analyzes the activations of neural network filters and quantifies bias via a Mann-Whitney U test, based on the observed fact that underrepresented groups exhibit lower activation levels in the final convolutional layers. 3) WeightBias (extension of the existing method IFBiD), which uses a secondary neural network trained to identify biased patterns directly in the parameters of task-specific models. Unlike conventional methods, which assess neural network outcomes and treat the model as a black box, our proposed techniques provide insight into how biases manifest within the network architecture itself at different levels, offering a more nuanced and detailed understanding. Experiments are conducted on two complementary applications: gender classification in the DiveFace dataset (72,000 face images) and digit classification on a colored-MNIST benchmark with controlled bias severity. In total, more than 127,000 models with varying degrees and types of bias were trained and evaluated. The severity sweep shows that the internal disparity, and with it the detection performance, decreases smoothly as the training distribution approaches balance. The results highlight the importance of methods that provide deeper insight into the behavior of AI models.

VISTA: Auditing Semantic Divergence in Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models can exhibit visual concept-conditioned divergence: given images containing demographic features, corporate logos, or ideological symbols, some models produce unusually uniform responses that differ from what peer models say about the same input. These behaviors evade text-only audits because visual concepts cannot be isolated or substituted the way text tokens can. We present VISTA (Visual Inconsistency Screening Through Analysis), a black-box cross-model audit that couples semantic entropy with distribution-based divergence to flag model-specific anomalies. In a controlled study, we implant concept-conditioned stances in three VLMs via fine-tuning on small biased datasets and confirm that VISTA detects them. Auditing six VLMs across 19 topics, VISTA surfaces 142 high-suspicion cases (1.2%) and identifies selective refusal as a previously unreported divergence pattern, where models refuse demographic queries at rates varying from 0 to 65% across groups.

Distill to Detect: Exposing Stealth Biases in LLMs through Cartridge Distillation

Language models deployed in high-stakes roles can potentially favor certain entities, brands, or viewpoints, steering user decisions at scale. Such preferential biases can be introduced by any actor in the model's supply chain and are most dangerous when the model reveals its preference only on the relevant topic while behaving identically to its unmodified base on all other inputs. Recent work has shown that these biases can transfer through context distillation on semantically unrelated data, with the signal residing entirely in the soft logit distribution and remaining invisible to text-based inspection. However, the defender faces a fundamental asymmetry: without knowing the bias topic, no detection method can reliably surface a stealth preferential bias, regardless of whether it examines generated text, internal representations, or model weights. Here we introduce Distill to Detect (D2D), a method that surfaces hidden biases by distilling the distributional shift between a suspected model and its base into a cartridge (a KV-cache prefix adapter), concentrating the dominant divergence and amplifying the bias signal into generated text. We show that D2D successfully amplifies the hidden biases of stealth models to the extent that they can be reliably detected across multiple bias types. We also propose a theoretical framework that explains the efficacy of D2D through the lens of Fisher-weighted projection of the logit distribution shift, supported by empirical observations. By turning the capacity bottleneck of prefix-tuning adapters into a detection tool, D2D provides a practical building block for auditing hidden behaviors in deployed language models.

UnBias-Plus: Detect, Explain, and Rewrite Bias

Bias in natural language remains a persistent challenge in both human-written and AI-generated content, affecting domains such as journalism, education, and AI research. Most existing detection methods identify only the presence of bias, with limited support for granular detection, interpretable explanations, neutral rewriting, and openly available trained models. We present UnBias-Plus, an open-source toolkit unifying (1) segment-level multi-class bias classification, (2) biased span localization, (3) neutral text rewriting, and (4) reasoning for each decision. Available via Python, CLI, REST API, and web interfaces, UnBias-Plus supports accessible bias analysis. The toolkit, source code, models, datasets, and documentation are publicly available.

Identifying High-Confidence Social Biases in LLMs for Trustworthy Conversational Tutoring Agents

Conversational tutoring agents have been shown to improve learning engagement and student outcomes, and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in these systems to provide scalable, personalized feedback. However, LLMs may perpetuate or amplify stereotypical social biases, posing particular risks in educational settings. In this study, we evaluate LLMs in conversational tutoring scenarios to identify high-confidence social biases, instances where models are unable to identify biased judgments in tutoring conversations while maintaining strong confidence in their assessments, potentially affecting their reasoning and the feedback they provide to learners. We present a new dataset generation method that enables bias evaluation under naturalistic instructional conditions by regenerating student-AI tutor interactions and introducing turns with controlled bias derived from a benchmark dataset. Using this data, we assess multiple LLMs' ability to detect stereotypical biases and analyze the confidence and reasoning underlying their responses through computational and human evaluations. We find that bias detection is substantially more challenging in conversational tutoring contexts than in benchmark-based evaluations, and that state-of-the-art LLMs are overconfident in their incorrect assessments of stereotypical bias statements. Moreover, model confidence strongly influences reasoning and feedback, highlighting the risks of overconfident, biased behavior in LLM-based tutoring agents. We conclude by discussing implications, mitigation considerations, and directions for future research.