# Social Bias in Popular Question-Answering Benchmarks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15553 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15553/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 51 of its 82 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 May 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 51)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.11641/) (2019)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.10044/) (2019)
- [Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.02789/) (2018)
- [MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16502/) (2023)
- [Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.09513/) (2022)
- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [OK-VQA: A Visual Question Answering Benchmark Requiring External Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.00067/) (2019)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09456/) (2020)
- [DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.00161/) (2019)
- [Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02235/) (2021)
- [BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08193/) (2021)
- [CoQA: A Conversational Question Answering Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.07042/) (2018)
- [On the Cross-lingual Transferability of Monolingual Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.11856/) (2019)
- [Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.09301/) (2018)
- [BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.11718/) (2021)
- [AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.15366/) (2021)
- [Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.08976/) (2019)
- [Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.07997/) (2021)
- [Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.05345/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Whose Personae? Synthetic Persona Experiments in LLM Research and Pathways to Transparency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.00461/) (2025)
- [Do Bias Benchmarks Generalise? Evidence from Voice-based Evaluation of Gender Bias in SpeechLLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.01254/) (2025)
- [Human-Centred LLM Privacy Audits: Findings and Frictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12094/) (2026)
- [Bye Bye Perspective API: Lessons for Building and Governing Measurement Infrastructure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.25580/) (2026)
- [The Benchmark Trap: Structures of Power and Injustice in AI Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.15326/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.