@inproceedings{kraft-etal-2025-social,
    title = "Social Bias in Popular Question-Answering Benchmarks",
    author = "Kraft, Angelie  and
      Simon, Judith  and
      Schimmler, Sonja",
    editor = "Inui, Kentaro  and
      Sakti, Sakriani  and
      Wang, Haofen  and
      Wong, Derek F.  and
      Bhattacharyya, Pushpak  and
      Banerjee, Biplab  and
      Ekbal, Asif  and
      Chakraborty, Tanmoy  and
      Singh, Dhirendra Pratap",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
    month = dec,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Mumbai, India",
    publisher = "The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing and The Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-ijcnlp-aacl/2025.ijcnlp-long.79/",
    pages = "1421--1438",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-298-5",
    abstract = "Question-answering (QA) and reading comprehension (RC) benchmarks are commonly used for assessing the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to retrieve and reproduce knowledge. However, we demonstrate that popular QA and RC benchmarks do not cover questions about different demographics or regions in a representative way. We perform a content analysis of 30 benchmark papers and a quantitative analysis of 20 respective benchmark datasets to learn (1) who is involved in the benchmark creation, (2) whether the benchmarks exhibit social bias, or whether this is addressed or prevented, and (3) whether the demographics of the creators and annotators correspond to particular biases in the content. Most benchmark papers analyzed provide insufficient information about those involved in benchmark creation, particularly the annotators. Notably, just one (WinoGrande) explicitly reports measures taken to address social representation issues. Moreover, the data analysis revealed gender, religion, and geographic biases across a wide range of encyclopedic, commonsense, and scholarly benchmarks. Our work adds to the mounting criticism of AI evaluation practices and shines a light on biased benchmarks being a potential source of LLM bias by incentivizing biased inference heuristics."
}