With the success of Large Language Models (LLMs), many Generative Vision-Language Models (GVLMs) have been constructed via multimodal instruction tuning. However, the performance of GVLMs in multimodal compositional reasoning remains under-explored. In this paper, we examine both the evaluation metrics ( VisualGPTScore, etc.) and current benchmarks for evaluating the compositionality of GVLMs. We identify the syntactical bias in current benchmarks, which is exploited by the linguistic capability of GVLMs. The bias renders VisualGPTScore an insufficient metric for assessing GVLMs. To combat this, we first introduce a **SyntaxBias Score**, leveraging LLMs to quantify such bias for mitigation. A challenging new task is subsequently added to evaluate the robustness of GVLMs against inherent inclination toward syntactical correctness. Using the bias-mitigated datasets and the new task, we propose a novel benchmark, namely **S**ynt**A**ctically **DE**-biased benchmark (SADE). Our study provides an unbiased benchmark for the compositionality of GVLMs, facilitating future research in this direction. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/TeleeMa/SADE.

With the pervasive use of large language models (LLMs) across various domains, addressing the inherent ableist biases within these models requires more attention and resolution. This paper examines ableism in three LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Llama 3) by analyzing the intersection of disability with two additional social categories: gender and social class. Utilizing two task-specific prompts, we generated and analyzed text outputs with two metrics, VADER and regard, to evaluate sentiment and social perception biases within the responses. Our results indicate a marked improvement in bias mitigation from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4, with the latter demonstrating more positive sentiments overall, while Llama 3 showed comparatively weaker performance. Additionally, our findings underscore the complexity of intersectional biases: These biases are shaped by the combined effects of disability, gender, and class, which alter the expression and perception of ableism in LLM outputs. This research highlights the necessity for more nuanced and inclusive bias mitigation strategies in AI development, contributing to the ongoing dialogue on ethical AI practices.