One Bias Score, Two Factors: How Mitigations Affect Option Bias in Multiple-Choice Evaluation
Abstract
Selection bias and order sensitivity in multiple-choice models are decomposed into flip rate and positional skew via pooled standard deviation, showing that prior correction and aggregation target different factors and should be reported together with accuracy.
Reordering multiple-choice options can change a model's answer, an effect studied as selection bias (a preference for certain option letters) and as order sensitivity (changes in answers across option orderings). We connect these perspectives through the pooled selection-rate standard deviation (pooled SD), which measures how unevenly option letters are selected across questions and orderings. When every option of each question appears equally often at each position, the pooled SD is exactly the product of two label-free factors: the flip rate and the positional skew. The flip rate is the fraction of questions whose chosen option changes across orderings; the positional skew is the standard deviation of option-letter selection rates among those questions. Across 41 checkpoints and 12 benchmarks, the flip rate tracks accuracy and output uncertainty, while the positional skew tracks the estimated option-symbol prior. Prior correction for selection bias mainly reduces the positional skew. Aggregating each ordering with its reversal, a mitigation for order sensitivity, mainly reduces the flip rate. Both reduce the range of accuracy across correct-answer letters by similar amounts, but aggregation leaves fewer model-rank reversals. Applying prior correction before aggregation reduces both factors and further narrows this accuracy range. However, aggregation lowers the flip rate partly by settling questions on the same wrong option. We therefore recommend reporting both factors to distinguish mitigation effects, alongside accuracy to distinguish stability from correctness.
Community
Paper about option bias.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Your Benchmark Is Not Saturated: Reviving Multiple-Choice Evaluation with Answer Pooling (2026)
- Scoring the Wrong Question: Readout Failures in Constrained-Option Evaluation (2026)
- Consider, Then Choose: Order-Invariant Decisions in System One Models (2026)
- Equal Ranking Quality, Different Decisions: Measuring and Reducing Order Dependence in LLM Scorers (2026)
- AnyJev Technical Report (2026)
- When Models Defer to Wrong Answers: A Robustness Audit of Source-Attributed Cues in Multiple-Choice QA (2026)
- Beyond Bias Scores: Answerability Confounds in Activation Steering with Gradient-Constrained Direction Design (GCD) (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2610.20993 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper