Recursive prompting with large language models enables scalable synthetic dataset generation but introduces the risk of bias amplification. We investigate gender bias dynamics across three generations of recursive text generation using three complementary evaluation frameworks: rule-based pattern matching, embedding based semantic similarity, and downstream task performance. Experiments with three initial bias levels (0.1, 0.3, 0.6) and four mitigation strategies reveal equilibrium dynamics rather than monotonic amplification. The low initial bias amplifies toward the model’s inherent bias level (+ 36%), whereas the high initial bias decays toward it (-26%). Among mitigation methods, contrastive augmentation, which introduces gender-swapped variants, achieves significant downstream bias reduction (98.8% for low initial bias and 91% on average) despite producing higher embedding-based bias scores. This paradox demonstrates that semantic similarity metrics may diverge from behavioral fairness outcomes, highlighting the need for multidimensional evaluation in responsible synthetic data generation.

LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators. These pipelines typically assume that judgments are stable properties of fixed inputs. We show that this assumption does not hold under interaction.We study post-decision manipulability: the extent to which an evaluation outcome can be altered through subsequent conversation with the judge after an initial decision has been made. Across controlled experiments on MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, we find that LLM judges are highly stable under repeated and neutral reevaluation, yet become substantially reversible under targeted post-decision challenge. An anti-baseline challenge protocol shows that stable judgments can be overturned through motivated interaction, while a counterbalanced target-validation protocol separates this reversibility from net target-directed steering.These reversals have practical consequences: they can degrade agreement with human preferences, shift benchmark rankings, and produce harmful evaluation changes despite high self-reported confidence. Authority framing is especially destabilizing, and revised judgments are often accompanied by low-overlap justifications, suggesting post hoc rationalization rather than reliable error correction. We introduce the Evaluation Robustness Score (ERS) to quantify interactional robustness by combining reversal susceptibility with counterbalanced directional effects. Our findings identify post-decision interaction as a distinct failure mode for LLM-as-judge evaluation and motivate evaluation protocols that measure not only static agreement, but robustness under challenge.

Mental health communication in India is linguistically fragmented, culturally diverse, and often underrepresented in clinical NLP. Current health ontologies and mental health resources are dominated by English or Western-centric diagnostic frameworks, leaving a gap in representing patient distress expressions in Indian languages. We propose the Cross-Lingual Graphs of Patient Distress Expressions (CL-PDE), a framework for building cross-lingual mental health ontologies through graph-based methods that capture culturally embedded expressions of distress, align them across languages, and link them with clinical terminology. Our approach addresses critical gaps in healthcare communication by grounding AI systems in culturally valid representations, enabling more inclusive and patient-centric NLP tools for mental health care in multilingual contexts.