pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05483 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CL

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Can We Trust a Black-box LLM? LLM Untrustworthy Boundary Detection via Bias-Diffusion and Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Xiaotian Zhou , Di Tang , Xiaofeng Wang , Xiaozhong Liu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CL
keywords LLM trustworthinessbias detectionuntrustworthy boundariesknowledge graphmulti-agent reinforcement learningblack-box accessbias diffusion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multi-agent reinforcement learning on a Wikipedia knowledge graph detects topics where black-box LLMs produce biased answers using limited queries.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents an algorithm that locates the topics on which a given LLM tends to give biased or incorrect answers. It builds a graph of topics from Wikipedia and deploys several reinforcement learning agents that query the model and spread detected bias signals to neighboring topics. This process maps the full boundary of untrustworthy regions while respecting limits on the number of queries allowed and without any internal access to the model. A reader would care because LLMs are deployed across many domains yet their reliability is uneven, and knowing these boundaries helps decide when to trust or double-check an answer. The work also supplies a dataset that labels biased topics for several current LLMs.

Core claim

The central claim is that the GMRL-BD algorithm identifies the untrustworthy boundaries of any black-box LLM by diffusing bias signals across nodes of a general Wikipedia-derived knowledge graph, with multiple reinforcement learning agents guiding the search to focus queries on promising topic regions and thereby mapping the boundary with only a small number of model interactions.

What carries the argument

GMRL-BD: bias diffusion across a Wikipedia-derived knowledge graph steered by multiple reinforcement learning agents that explore and mark topics where the LLM yields biased responses.

If this is right

  • Any black-box LLM can have its topic-level trust boundaries mapped with only limited queries to the model.
  • The method works without internal model weights or gradients, relying solely on question-answer pairs.
  • Experiments confirm that the boundary can be found efficiently under realistic query budgets.
  • A released dataset supplies bias labels for models including Llama2, Vicuna, Falcon, Qwen2, Gemma2 and Yi-1.5.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same graph-plus-agent structure could be reused to track other forms of unreliability such as factual hallucination or refusal patterns.
  • Integrating the detected boundaries into a user interface might let systems warn or reroute queries that fall inside untrustworthy regions.
  • Extending the underlying graph to domain-specific sources could tighten the boundaries for specialized applications.

Load-bearing premise

That bias signals detected in a few black-box queries can be reliably propagated through the knowledge graph to reveal the complete set of untrustworthy topics without missing regions or adding too many false positives.

What would settle it

Running the algorithm on an LLM whose biased topics are already known through other means and checking whether it recovers those exact topics after only a small number of queries or instead misses them or flags many unrelated topics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05483 by Di Tang, Xiaofeng Wang, Xiaotian Zhou, Xiaozhong Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: GMRL-BD - Training Stage: Agent maximize rewards and enhance graph representations by interacting with nodes on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: GMRL-BD Model Architecture. Agents interact with nodes on the KG to maximize diffusion navigation rewards and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance of the GMRL-BD Framework Across Six Tasks Using Llama-2, Vicuna, and Falcon Models. These graphs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bias Transmission Rate. that Llama-2 and Falcon outperform other models in effectively identifying bias nodes across diverse topics, with particularly strong performance in Immigration and Economy under the GMRL-BD framework. Models Immigration Politics Education Economy Llama-2 90.34 76.67 71.63 86.00 Vicuna 78.61 53.79 58.25 63.41 Falcon 90.69 70.41 65.50 83.88 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of Increasing Number of Agents on Step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown a high capability in answering questions on a diverse range of topics. However, these models sometimes produce biased, ideologized or incorrect responses, limiting their applications if there is no clear understanding of which topics their answers can be trusted. In this research, we introduce a novel algorithm, named as GMRL-BD, designed to identify the untrustworthy boundaries (in terms of topics) of a given LLM, with black-box access to the LLM and under specific query constraints. Based on a general Knowledge Graph (KG) derived from Wikipedia, our algorithm incorporates with multiple reinforcement learning agents to efficiently identify topics (some nodes in KG) where the LLM is likely to generate biased answers. Our experiments demonstrated the efficiency of our algorithm, which can detect the untrustworthy boundary with just limited queries to the LLM. Additionally, we have released a new dataset containing popular LLMs including Llama2, Vicuna, Falcon, Qwen2, Gemma2 and Yi-1.5, along with labels indicating the topics on which each LLM is likely to be biased.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GMRL-BD, a multi-agent RL algorithm that operates on a Wikipedia-derived knowledge graph to identify topic nodes where black-box LLMs produce biased or untrustworthy answers. It claims to achieve this detection efficiently using only limited queries to the target LLM and releases a dataset of bias labels for models including Llama2, Vicuna, Falcon, Qwen2, Gemma2, and Yi-1.5.

Significance. A reliable black-box method for mapping LLM trustworthiness boundaries across topics would be a useful auditing tool. The dataset release is a concrete positive contribution that could support follow-on work. However, the absence of any reported quantitative metrics, baselines, ablation studies, or validation protocol in the abstract and the lack of a clearly defined, reproducible bias proxy make it impossible to assess whether the claimed efficiency or correctness actually holds.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central efficiency claim ('detect the untrustworthy boundary with just limited queries') is stated without any numerical results, query counts, success rates, baselines, or error bars, so the experimental assertion cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Method] Method section (bias-diffusion and RL agents): no reproducible, black-box-only definition is given for the bias proxy or diffusion operator on the KG nodes. Without an explicit scoring function (e.g., refusal rate, factual inconsistency against a reference, or sentiment measure) that can be computed from LLM responses alone, it is unclear what quantity the multi-agent RL is actually optimizing or whether it corresponds to LLM-specific bias.
  3. [Experiments] Experiments: no tables or figures report quantitative performance (precision/recall on held-out topics, query budget vs. coverage, comparison to random or heuristic baselines), so the 'efficiency' and 'reliability' claims rest on an unverified assumption that the KG+RL pipeline surfaces genuine LLM biases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Dataset] Clarify in the dataset description how the ground-truth bias labels were obtained and whether they were validated by human annotators or cross-checked against known factual errors.
  2. [Method] The notation for the multi-agent RL state, reward, and diffusion update should be made fully explicit (including any hyperparameters) so that the algorithm can be re-implemented from the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for recognizing the potential utility of GMRL-BD as a black-box auditing tool as well as the value of the released bias-labeled dataset. We address each major comment point by point below. Where the comments correctly identify gaps in clarity or reporting, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central efficiency claim ('detect the untrustworthy boundary with just limited queries') is stated without any numerical results, query counts, success rates, baselines, or error bars, so the experimental assertion cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including concrete numerical support for the efficiency claim. In the revised manuscript we have updated the abstract to report key experimental outcomes, including average query counts to reach boundary detection, coverage rates achieved, and brief reference to baseline comparisons, with full details and error bars retained in the Experiments section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method section (bias-diffusion and RL agents): no reproducible, black-box-only definition is given for the bias proxy or diffusion operator on the KG nodes. Without an explicit scoring function (e.g., refusal rate, factual inconsistency against a reference, or sentiment measure) that can be computed from LLM responses alone, it is unclear what quantity the multi-agent RL is actually optimizing or whether it corresponds to LLM-specific bias.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater reproducibility. The bias proxy is defined exclusively from black-box LLM outputs via a refusal-rate and inconsistency metric computed on a fixed set of neutral prompts; the diffusion operator then propagates node scores across the Wikipedia KG using a normalized adjacency-weighted update rule. We have added an explicit scoring function, mathematical formulation, and pseudocode in the revised Method section so that the quantity optimized by the multi-agent RL can be computed and verified using only queries to the target model. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments: no tables or figures report quantitative performance (precision/recall on held-out topics, query budget vs. coverage, comparison to random or heuristic baselines), so the 'efficiency' and 'reliability' claims rest on an unverified assumption that the KG+RL pipeline surfaces genuine LLM biases.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original presentation of results would benefit from more explicit quantitative tables and figures. The revised Experiments section now includes tables reporting precision and recall on held-out topics, curves of query budget versus coverage, and direct comparisons against random sampling and simple heuristic baselines. We also describe the validation protocol that uses the released bias-labeled dataset (covering Llama2, Qwen2, and the other listed models) to confirm that detected boundaries align with observed model biases. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper proposes GMRL-BD, a new algorithm that applies multi-agent RL on an external Wikipedia-derived KG to locate LLM bias topics under black-box query limits. The central claims rest on experimental validation and a released dataset rather than any self-referential definitions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or steps in the described method reduce by construction to the inputs; the KG and RL components are independent external machinery. This is the common case of a self-contained applied method whose correctness can be checked against the released data and external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the premise that LLM bias can be modeled as a diffusion process over a Wikipedia-derived knowledge graph and optimized efficiently by multi-agent RL; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Wikipedia-derived knowledge graph accurately captures topic relationships relevant to LLM bias detection
    The algorithm uses this KG as the search space for identifying untrustworthy nodes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5509 in / 1233 out tokens · 40712 ms · 2026-05-10T18:25:31.003934+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ravi Varma Kumar Bevara, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Sai Pranathi Karedla, and Ting Xiao. 2024. Scaling Implicit Bias Analysis across Transformer-Based Lan- guage Models through Embedding Association Test and Prompt Engineering. Applied Sciences14, 8 (2024), 3483

    2024

  2. [2]

    Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philos- ophy. InConference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, 149–159

    2018

  3. [3]

    Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Lan- guage (technology) is power: A critical survey of" bias" in nlp.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14050(2020)

    work page arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases.Science356, 6334 (2017), 183–186

    2017

  5. [5]

    Chris Dann, Yishay Mansour, Mehryar Mohri, Ayush Sekhari, and Karthik Srid- haran. 2022. Guarantees for epsilon-greedy reinforcement learning with function approximation. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 4666– 4689

    2022

  6. [6]

    David Esiobu, Xiaoqing Tan, Saghar Hosseini, Megan Ung, Yuchen Zhang, Jude Fernandes, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Eleonora Presani, Adina Williams, and Eric Smith

  7. [7]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    ROBBIE: Robust bias evaluation of large generative language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 3764–3814

    2023

  8. [8]

    Emilio Ferrara. 2023. Should chatgpt be biased? challenges and risks of bias in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03738(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Isabel O Gallegos, Ryan A Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, and Nesreen K Ahmed. 2024. Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey.Computational Linguistics(2024), 1–79

    2024

  10. [10]

    Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, 3356–3369. doi:10.18653/ v1/2020.findings-emnlp.301

    2020

  11. [11]

    2008.Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX

    Aric Hagberg, Pieter J Swart, and Daniel A Schult. 2008.Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. Technical Report. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)

    2008

  12. [12]

    Alexander Halavais and Derek Lackaff. 2008. An analysis of topical coverage of Wikipedia.Journal of computer-mediated communication13, 2 (2008), 429–440

    2008

  13. [13]

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs.Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Matteo Hessel, Joseph Modayil, Hado Van Hasselt, Tom Schaul, Georg Ostro- vski, Will Dabney, Dan Horgan, Bilal Piot, Mohammad Azar, and David Silver

  15. [15]

    In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol

    Rainbow: Combining improvements in deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 32

  16. [16]

    He Jiang, Yulun Zhang, Rishi Veerapaneni, and Jiaoyang Li. 2024. Scaling Lifelong Multi-Agent Path Finding to More Realistic Settings: Research Challenges and Opportunities. InProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, Vol. 17. 234–242

    2024

  17. [17]

    Kazumi Kasaura, Ryo Yonetani, and Mai Nishimura. 2023. Periodic multi-agent path planning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 37. 6183–6191

    2023

  18. [18]

    Sotiris Kotsiantis, Dimitris Kanellopoulos, Panayiotis Pintelas, et al. 2006. Han- dling imbalanced datasets: A review.GESTS international transactions on computer science and engineering30, 1 (2006), 25–36

    2006

  19. [19]

    Pinxin Long, Wenxi Liu, and Jia Pan. 2017. Deep-learned collision avoidance policy for distributed multiagent navigation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2, 2 (2017), 656–663

    2017

  20. [20]

    Karman Lucero. 2019. Artificial intelligence regulation and China’s future.Colum. J. Asian L.33 (2019), 94

    2019

  21. [21]

    Chandler May, Alex Wang, Shikha Bordia, Samuel R Bowman, and Rachel Rudinger. 2019. On measuring social biases in sentence encoders. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). 622–628

    2019

  22. [22]

    Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin Riedmiller. 2013. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602(2013)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2021. StereoSet: Measuring stereo- typical bias in pretrained language models. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th Interna- tional Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Robe...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.416 2021

  24. [24]

    Nikita Nangia, Clara Vania, Rasika Bhalerao, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Lan- guage Models. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in XXXX ’XX, XXX, 2026, XXX, XXX Xiaotian Zhou, Di Tang, Xiaofeng Wang, and Xiaozhong Liu Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Bonnie We...

    2020

  25. [25]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.154

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.154 2020

  26. [26]

    Debora Nozza, Federico Bianchi, and Dirk Hovy. 2021. HONEST: Measuring hurt- ful sentence completion in language models. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

    2021

  27. [27]

    Abiodun Finbarrs Oketunji, Muhammad Anas, and Deepthi Saina. 2023. Large Language Model (LLM) Bias Index–LLMBI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14769 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library.Advances in neural information processing systems32 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250(2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Julian Salazar, Davis Liang, Toan Q Nguyen, and Katrin Kirchhoff. 2019. Masked language model scoring. InarXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14659

    work page arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 5477–5490. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.486

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.486 2020

  32. [32]

    Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01326(2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    2018.Reinforcement learning: An intro- duction

    Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 2018.Reinforcement learning: An intro- duction. MIT press

    2018

  34. [34]

    Zhen Tan, Alimohammad Beigi, Song Wang, Ruocheng Guo, Amrita Bhattachar- jee, Bohan Jiang, Mansooreh Karami, Jundong Li, Lu Cheng, and Huan Liu

  35. [35]

    Large Language Models for Data Annotation: A Survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13446(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Daniel Van Niekerk, María Peréz-Ortiz, John Shawe-Taylor, Davor Orlic, Jackie Kay, Noah Siegel, Katherine Evans, Nyalleng Moorosi, Tina Eliassi-Rad, Leonie Maria Tanczer, et al. 2024. Challenging Systematic Prejudices: An Investi- gation into Bias Against Women and Girls. (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903(2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Kellie Webster, Marta Recasens, Vera Axelrod, and Michael Ringgaard. 2020. Measuring and reducing gendered correlations in pre-trained models. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06032

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Tian Xia, Miao Chen, and Xiaozhong Liu. 2015. Explicit semantic path mining via Wikipedia knowledge tree.Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology51, 1 (2015), 1–4. doi:10.1002/meet.2014.14505101160

    work page doi:10.1002/meet.2014.14505101160 2015

  40. [40]

    Yuzi Yan, Xiaoxiang Li, Xinyou Qiu, Jiantao Qiu, Jian Wang, Yu Wang, and Yuan Shen. 2022. Relative distributed formation and obstacle avoidance with multi- agent reinforcement learning. In2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 1661–1667

    2022

  41. [41]

    Hongwei Zeng, Bifan Wei, Jun Liu, and Weiping Fu. 2023. Synthesize, prompt and transfer: Zero-shot conversational question generation with pre-trained language model. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 8989–9010

    2023

  42. [42]

    Ruoyu Zhang, Yanzeng Li, Yongliang Ma, Ming Zhou, and Lei Zou. 2023. Ll- maaa: Making large language models as active annotators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19596(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Jiaxu Zhao, Meng Fang, Shirui Pan, Wenpeng Yin, and Mykola Pechenizkiy

  44. [44]

    Gptbias: A comprehensive framework for evaluating bias in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06315(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Xiaotian Zhou, Qian Wang, Xiaofeng Wang, Haixu Tang, and Xiaozhong Liu

  46. [46]

    Large Language Model Soft Ideologization via AI-Self-Consciousness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16167(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023