Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces inspect_permute, an open-source tool that conducts exhaustive answer-order permutations to measure position bias in LLM evaluations, addressing the confounding effects of content-level noise and sampling stochasticity. By applying this method to four different LLMs across five subjects with a total of 24,000 API calls, the study reveals that position bias is only statistically detectable within a specific accuracy range, highlighting the limitations of current evaluation benchmarks. The findings suggest that the absence of detectable bias in high-performing models should not be interpreted as true unbiasedness, but rather as a measurement limitation, thereby refining the understanding of capability comparisons in LLMs.
Position bias in LLM evaluations is only detectable within a narrow accuracy range, challenging the interpretation of benchmark results for high-performing models.
Position bias in multiple-choice LLM evaluation is widely cited as a confound in capability comparisons, but published measurements rely on single answer-order shuffles whose results confound the bias signal with content-level noise and sampling stochasticity. I introduce inspect_permute, an open-source extension to the inspect_ai evaluation framework that runs exhaustive answer-order permutations per question and reports the chi-squared / Cramer V signature of position bias with bootstrap confidence intervals. I apply the tool across four vendors (gpt-4o-mini, claude-haiku-4-5, gemini-2.5-flash, grok-3) on five MMLU subjects, 24,000 API calls under temperature-0 generation, with falsifier predictions pre-registered via a public SHA-256 hash before half the data was observed. Position bias turns out to be statistically detectable only within a roughly 60-95% base-accuracy Goldilocks zone. Below it, processing-load dominance swamps subject-specific signal; above it, ceiling effects compress the variance below the chi-squared test resolution. Detectable cells separate into two mechanism types: monotone A-to-D decrease (processing_load, in low-tier models) and non-monotone D-drop (content_ambiguity, in a narrow capability band). Standard MMLU places every frontier-tier model above the detection band, so absence of signal there should be read as not measurable, not unbiased. Together with the ceiling-effect characterisation in arXiv:2606.26185, this work brackets the detectable region of position-bias measurement and makes the field central question askable in a verifiable form. Package, data, preregistration under MIT.
