BEADs: Bias Evaluation Across Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved natural language processing (NLP) applications. However, these models often inherit and amplify biases present in their training data. Although several datasets exist for bias detection, most are limited to one or two NLP tasks, typically classification or evaluation and do not provide broad coverage across diverse task settings. To address this gap, we introduce the Bias Evaluations Across Domains (BEADs) dataset, designed to support a wide range of NLP tasks, including text classification, token classification, bias quantification, and benign language generation. A key contribution of this work is a gold-standard annotation scheme that supports both evaluation and supervised training of language models. Experiments on state-of-the-art models reveal some gaps: some models exhibit systematic bias toward specific demographics, while others apply safety guardrails more strictly or inconsistently across groups. Overall, these results highlight persistent shortcomings in current models and underscore the need for comprehensive bias evaluation. The benchmark will be made publicly available for research ( https://huggingface.co/datasets/shainar/BEAD ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".