In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores
Authors: Zeyu Tang, Sang T. Truong, Deonna Owens et al.
Summary
arXiv:2605. 12530v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ conversational behavior rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks.
Relevance
Read next because In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores overlaps with clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)", clean result "Only continuous soft prefixes hit both EM axes at once on Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct: discrete prompt searches split between the alignment objective and the distributional objective, and both discretizations of the soft prefix collapse (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Training one persona to emit a [ZLT] marker without bystanders adopting it has a one-cell-wide LR x epochs window on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: rect, eval, prompt, test, does, model, both. Source: arxiv cs.CL (NLP).
Threat model
Potential threat/caveat for clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)": this item discusses evaluation, benchmark.
Abstract
arXiv:2605.12530v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ conversational behavior rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks. We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable: surface-level prompt construction choices, although entirely orthogonal to the fairness question being tested, account for the majority of score variance, shift fairness conclusions in both the direction and the magnitude, and result in severe discordance in model rankings. We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue for in-situ behavior evaluation, examining how models' conversational behavior shifts when identity is varied as part of natural multi-agent interaction. Repurposing standardized-test questions as conversation seeds rather than as the evaluation instrument, we evaluate position persistence (how they hold positions, from the self-perspective) and peer receptiveness (how receptive they are to peers, from the other-perspective) across 8 million conversation transcripts spanning multiple models and identity presence configurations. In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies, a form of evidence the standardized-test paradigm does not offer.