Sanju Tiwari

Abhash Shrestha, Subigya Gautam, Anu Sapkota et al.

Artificial intelligence increasingly mediates consequential decisions in healthcare, law, and public services, and the field has responded with an extensive methodology for measuring and mitigating bias. Yet the fairness definitions, benchmarks, and debiasing frameworks on which this methodology rests are treated as universal while being produced by a research community whose composition has never been characterized. We show that the AI bias research are structurally concentrated, and that this concentration is greatest, geographically, in precisely the domain the rest of the field inherits from. Analyzing 692 publications spanning five thematic domains, combining bibliometric analysis with semantic clustering, we find that research activity is dominated by a small set of countries, institutions, and authors, with the United States leading publication output and collaboration networks across every domain and most strongly in general fairness and bias mitigation, the largest, most-cited domain with meaningful representation across all four semantic clusters. Low- and middle-income countries remain largely absent from the community and its collaboration networks, and citation influence is highly skewed (median = 9; mean =93.5 ), indicating that a small fraction of publications disproportionately shapes the field. Because the general-fairness domain supplies the definitions and benchmarks that application areas apply, concentration of research effort in this foundational domain propagates across AI bias research as a whole - raising the concern that mitigation methods developed and validated within a narrow set of contexts may not generalize to all populations and settings where AI is deployed. We provide an interactive atlas for continuous monitoring of the field's structure.

Naveen Lamba, Sanju Tiwari, Manas Gaur

Hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs) is a well studied problem. However, the properties that make LLM intrinsically vulnerable to hallucinations have not been identified and studied. This research identifies and characterizes the key properties, allowing us to pinpoint vulnerabilities within the model's internal mechanisms. To solidify on these properties, we utilized two established datasets, HaluEval and TruthfulQA and convert their existing format of question answering into various other formats to narrow down these properties as the reason for the hallucinations. Our findings reveal that hallucination percentages across symbolic properties are notably high for Gemma-2-2B, averaging 79.0% across tasks and datasets. With increased model scale, hallucination drops to 73.6% for Gemma-2-9B and 63.9% for Gemma-2-27B, reflecting a 15 percentage point reduction overall. Although the hallucination rate decreases as the model size increases, a substantial amount of hallucination caused by symbolic properties still persists. This is especially evident for modifiers (ranging from 84.76% to 94.98%) and named entities (ranging from 83.87% to 93.96%) across all Gemma models and both datasets. These findings indicate that symbolic elements continue to confuse the models, pointing to a fundamental weakness in how these LLMs process such inputs--regardless of their scale.