Papers for

language model evaluation teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Multilingual translation errors revealed by opposite premise tests

When Opposite Premises Translate Identically: A Source-Conditioned Diagnostic for Multilingual Commonsense Items

Abstract: Multilingual reasoning comparisons depend on translated premises preserving the relations in their English sources. Automatic translation scores can rank source-target pairs, but an acceptance decision alone cannot certify a counterfactual benchmark field. We test a source-contrast diagnostic for ACCORD premises: reverse the English polarity, translate both arms independently, count identical target outputs, and score each arm against its own source. Across 71 matched question identities at two containing-item depths, five target languages, and three translation checkpoints, Swahili has 63, 113, and 67 exact collisions among 710 pairs per checkpoint. At a human-reference-calibrated threshold, round-trip NLI passes both arms of 3 of the 113 NLLB-3.3B collisions, while LaBSE passes 78. Each collision proves at least one unfaithful translation, but does not identify its arm. These controlled measurements do not establish screening accuracy on spontaneous translation errors or a language-by-hop reasoning effect; the study has no native equivalence labels or answer-model evaluation.

Sat 17 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
When translating questions or statements from English to other languages, it’s important that the meaning stays the same. The authors found that sometimes when you flip a statement to its opposite meaning but translate both versions, the translations end up identical, which shows a problem. This means some translations don’t keep the intended meaning accurately. They tested this with several languages and translations but didn't identify exactly which part went wrong or how it affects answers.
Open → 2610.24428v1

Large language models show hidden bias against English dialects in housing

From a River in Gilead to the Inference Distributions of Large Language Models: Covert Dialect Bias and Linguistic Profiling at Scale

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as housing screening. While alignment techniques mitigate explicit racial bias in generated text, they often leave covert attitudinal associations in internal probability distributions untouched. Adapting the matched-guise sociolinguistic paradigm, we examine covert dialect bias in housing-related social judgments across four varieties: Standard American English (SAE), African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Nigerian Standard English (NSE), and Nigerian Pidgin (NP). AAVE reflects the racialized dialect studied in prior covert-bias evaluations, whereas NSE and NP represent Black African, postcolonial varieties absent from this literature. Using 260 meaning-matched sentence quadruples and log-probability scoring over housing-relevant adjectives, we probe ten open-weight LLMs across three contexts varying in social proximity: tenant screening, neighbor acceptance, and roommate selection. Across all ten models, AAVE and NP are consistently associated with more negative adjectives than SAE, with NP penalized most severely. Crucially, each dialect is penalized via distinct stereotype clusters rather than a generic non-standard category. NSE, which carries institutional prestige, displays a context-dependent shift: favored over SAE in formal tenant screening but increasingly penalized as social proximity grows. Our findings reveal that LLMs inherit covert dialect bias along both racial identity and prestige dimensions, echoing documented human housing discrimination and demonstrating its reach across postcolonial English varieties.

Wed 16 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Language AI tools that help screen people for housing often treat some ways of speaking unfairly. The authors found that these tools give more negative language to African American Vernacular English and Nigerian Pidgin than to standard American English, especially when judging neighbors or roommates. Some dialects were judged differently depending on social context, showing the models inherited subtle biases connected to race and prestige. These biases resemble real-world housing discrimination and affect different English dialects from the U.S. and Africa.
Open → 2609.18068v1