| Field | Response |
| :---- | :---- |
| Participation considerations from adversely impacted groups [protected classes](https://www.senate.ca.gov/content/protected-classes) in model design and testing: | None |
| Bias Metric (If Measured): | [BBQ Accuracy Scores in Ambiguous Contexts](https://github.com/nyu-mll/BBQ/) |
| Which characteristic (feature) show(s) the greatest difference in performance?: | The model shows high variance in the characteristics when it is used with a high temperature. |
| Measures taken to mitigate against unwanted bias: | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) employed to calibrate the model’s reasoning capabilities to maintain logical consistency and appropriate complexity when interacting with or interpreting data from diverse age demographics. |
| If using internal data, description of methods implemented in data acquisition or processing, if any, to address the prevalence of identifiable biases in the training, testing, and validation data: | The training datasets contain a large amount of synthetic data generated by LLMs. We manually curated prompts. |
| Tools used to assess statistical imbalances and highlight patterns that may introduce bias into AI models: | [BBQ](https://github.com/nyu-mll/BBQ/) |
| Tools used to assess statistical imbalances and highlight patterns that may introduce bias into AI models: | These datasets, such as web-scraped finance reasoning data derived from SEC EDGAR filings, science and math problem datasets, OpenResearcher/source-document datasets, Common Crawl, CC-News, Wikimedia, and long-context document datasets, do not collectively or exhaustively represent all demographic groups (and proportionally therein). For instance, these datasets do not contain explicit mentions of demographic classes such as age, gender, or ethnicity in approximately 97% to 99.9% of finance reasoning samples and in over 85% of samples across the broader assessed datasets. In the subset where such terms are present, these datasets contain notable representational skews. For example, ethnicity mentions are often dominated by Middle Eastern contexts (found in finance documents) or "White," "Two or more," and "Black or African American" as the most frequent ethnic identifiers, while references categorized as male-only significantly outnumber those categorized as female-only. Furthermore, gender is explicitly mentioned in approximately 12% of samples across the broader dataset assessment, yet in only 0.9% of finance-specific samples. Dataset-level results vary by source type, with long-context/source-document datasets containing higher explicit demographic mention rates compared to certain web-scraped sources. To mitigate these imbalances, we recommend considering evaluation techniques such as bias audits, fine-tuning with demographically balanced datasets, and mitigation strategies such as counterfactual data augmentation to align with the desired model behavior. This evaluation used a 3,000-sample subset per dataset, identified as the optimal threshold for maximizing embedder accuracy. |
| Unwanted Bias Testing: | Constrained to English-language inputs. Multi-lingual parity is not currently claimed or guaranteed. |