Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Fair Language Model Paradox

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.11985 v1 pith:LMXFNC26 submitted 2024-10-15 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords biasesleveltokentokenstrainingacrossdecaydynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in real-world applications, yet little is known about their training dynamics at the token level. Evaluation typically relies on aggregated training loss, measured at the batch level, which overlooks subtle per-token biases arising from (i) varying token-level dynamics and (ii) structural biases introduced by hyperparameters. While weight decay is commonly used to stabilize training, we reveal that it silently introduces performance biases detectable only at the token level. In fact, we empirically show across different dataset sizes, model architectures and sizes ranging from 270M to 3B parameters that as weight decay increases, low-frequency tokens are disproportionately depreciated. This is particularly concerning, as these neglected low-frequency tokens represent the vast majority of the token distribution in most languages, calling for novel regularization techniques that ensure fairness across all available tokens.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLMs on Trial: Evaluating Judicial Fairness for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 177,100-case benchmark shows that 16 LLMs systematically vary criminal sentences based on extra-legal demographic and procedural details, revealing pervasive judicial unfairness.

Pith tools