Alexander J. Gates

Runtao Zhou, Guangya Wan, Saadia Gabriel et al. · allen-ai, cmu

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in reasoning tasks, leading to their widespread deployment. However, recent studies have highlighted concerning biases in these models, particularly in their handling of dialectal variations like African American English (AAE). In this work, we systematically investigate dialectal disparities in LLM reasoning tasks. We develop an experimental framework comparing LLM performance given Standard American English (SAE) and AAE prompts, combining LLM-based dialect conversion with established linguistic analyses. We find that LLMs consistently produce less accurate responses and simpler reasoning chains and explanations for AAE inputs compared to equivalent SAE questions, with disparities most pronounced in social science and humanities domains. These findings highlight systematic differences in how LLMs process and reason about different language varieties, raising important questions about the development and deployment of these systems in our multilingual and multidialectal world. Our code repository is publicly available at https://github.com/Runtaozhou/dialect_bias_eval.

Alexander J. Gates

Comparing clusterings is central to evaluating unsupervised models, yet the many existing similarity measures can produce widely divergent, sometimes contradictory, evaluations. Clustering similarity measures are typically organized into two principal families, pair-counting and information-theoretic, reflecting whether they quantify agreement through element pairs or aggregate information across full cluster contingency tables. Prior work has uncovered parallels between these families and applied empirical normalization or chance-correction schemes, but their deeper analytical connection remains only partially understood. Here, we develop an analytical framework that unifies these families through two complementary perspectives. First, both families are expressed as weighted expansions of observed versus expected co-occurrences, with pair-counting arising as a quadratic, low-order approximation and information-theoretic measures as higher-order, frequency-weighted extensions. Second, we generalize pair-counting to $k$-tuple agreement and show that information-theoretic measures can be viewed as systematically accumulating higher-order co-assignment structure beyond the pairwise level. We illustrate the approaches analytically for the Rand index and Mutual Information, and show how other indices in each family emerge as natural extensions. Together, these views clarify when and why the two regimes diverge, relating their sensitivities directly to weighting and approximation order, and provide a principled basis for selecting, interpreting, and extending clustering similarity measures across applications.

Alexander J Gates, Yong-Yeol Ahn

Clustering is a central approach for unsupervised learning. After clustering is applied, the most fundamental analysis is to quantitatively compare clusterings. Such comparisons are crucial for the evaluation of clustering methods as well as other tasks such as consensus clustering. It is often argued that, in order to establish a baseline, clustering similarity should be assessed in the context of a random ensemble of clusterings. The prevailing assumption for the random clustering ensemble is the permutation model in which the number and sizes of clusters are fixed. However, this assumption does not necessarily hold in practice; for example, multiple runs of K-means clustering returns clusterings with a fixed number of clusters, while the cluster size distribution varies greatly. Here, we derive corrected variants of two clustering similarity measures (the Rand index and Mutual Information) in the context of two random clustering ensembles in which the number and sizes of clusters vary. In addition, we study the impact of one-sided comparisons in the scenario with a reference clustering. The consequences of different random models are illustrated using synthetic examples, handwriting recognition, and gene expression data. We demonstrate that the choice of random model can have a drastic impact on the ranking of similar clustering pairs, and the evaluation of a clustering method with respect to a random baseline; thus, the choice of random clustering model should be carefully justified.