Generating synthetic datasets via large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a promising approach to improve LLM performance.However, LLMs inherently reflect biases in their training data, leading to a critical challenge: when models are trained on synthetic data, they may propagate and amplify the inherent biases that can significantly impact fairness and robustness on downstream tasks—a phenomenon we term bias inheritance. This work presents the first systematic investigation in understanding, analyzing, and mitigating bias inheritance. We fine-tune LLMs with a combined dataset of real and LLM-augmented data with varied bias ratio as the proportion of augmented data. Through systematic experiments across 10 classification and generation tasks, we analyze how 6 different types of biases manifest. Our results indicate that bias inheritance harms downstream task performance in bias directly-related classification and generation tasks. Then, our analysis identifies three key misalignment factors: misalignment of values, group data, and data distributions. Based on these insights, we propose three mitigation strategies: token-based, mask-based, and loss-based approaches, which can work differently on various tasks and bias, indicating the substantial challenges to mitigate bias inheritance. We hope this work can provide insights to the research of LLM data augmentation.

This study intends to systematically disentangle pure logic reasoning and text understanding by investigating the contrast across abstract and contextualized logical problems from a comprehensive set of domains. We explore whether LLMs demonstrate genuine reasoning capabilities across various domains when the underlying logical structure remains constant. We focus on two main questions (1) Can abstract logical problems alone accurately benchmark LLMs’ reasoning ability in real-world scenarios, disentangled from contextual support in practical settings? (2) Does fine-tuning LLMs on abstract logic problems generalize to contextualized logic problems and vice versa? To investigate these questions, we focus on standard propositional logic, specifically propositional deductive and abductive logic reasoning. We construct datasets for both reasoning types with four difficulty levels across 12 distinct domains based on the Wikipedia categorization in addition to those with purely abstract variables. Our experiments aim to provide insights into disentangling context in logical reasoning, the genuine reasoning capabilities of LLMs, and their generalization potential. Coda and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ContextHub-957E.

Peer review is fundamental to the integrity and advancement of scientific publication. Traditional methods of peer review analyses often rely on exploration and statistics of existing peer review data, which do not adequately address the multivariate nature of the process, account for the latent variables, and are further constrained by privacy concerns due to the sensitive nature of the data. We introduce AgentReview, the first large language model (LLM) based peer review simulation framework, which effectively disentangles the impacts of multiple latent factors and addresses the privacy issue. Our study reveals significant insights, including a notable 37.1% variation in paper decisions due to reviewers’ biases, supported by sociological theories such as the social influence theory, altruism fatigue, and authority bias. We believe that this study could offer valuable insights to improve the design of peer review mechanisms.