Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Mitigating Selection Bias with Node Pruning and Auxiliary Options

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.18857 v2 pith:PWTC6OIU submitted 2024-09-27 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords biasselectionansweraccuracyauxiliarychoicellmsmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit systematic preferences for certain answer choices when responding to multiple-choice questions-a behavior known as selection bias. This bias reduces the accuracy and reliability of LLM outputs, limiting their usefulness in decision-critical applications. While prior work has focused on adjusting model inputs or outputs to mitigate this issue, our work takes a fundamentally different approach by identifying and removing the internal sources of bias. We introduce two methods: Bias Node Pruning (BNP), which prunes parameters that contribute to selection bias, and Auxiliary Option Injection (AOI), which introduces an additional answer choice to reduce bias in both white-box and black-box settings. To address the shortcomings of existing evaluation metrics, we propose Choice Kullback-Leibler Divergence (CKLD), a new metric that captures distributional imbalances in model predictions. Experiments on three LLMs across multiple datasets demonstrate that our methods consistently improve answer accuracy while reducing selection bias, providing a robust solution for both open- and closed-source models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the Reasoning Capacity of AI Models and How to Quantify It

    cs.AI 2025-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Positional randomization on GPQA shows GPT-4o-mini's accuracy is inflated by position-dependent heuristics, but the paper's strategy-decomposition model is validated only by construction and contradicts its own accuracy data.

  2. SCOPE: Stochastic and Counterbiased Option Placement for Evaluating Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    SCOPE estimates a model's position bias with nonsense prompts, puts correct answers in disliked slots, and spreads similar distractors apart to cap lucky guessing.

Pith tools