Abstract:Current bias evaluations in Instruction Text-to-Speech (ITTS) often rely on univariate testing, overlooking the compositional structure of social cues. In this work, we investigate gender bias by modeling prompts as combinations of Social Status, Career stereotypes, and Persona descriptors. Analyzing open-source ITTS models, we uncover systematic interaction effects where social dimensions modulate one another, creating complex bias patterns missed by univariate baselines. Crucially, our findings indicate that these biases extend beyond surface-level artifacts, demonstrating strong associations with the semantic priors of pre-trained text encoders and the skewed distributions inherent in training data. We further demonstrate that generic diversity prompting is insufficient to override these entrenched patterns, underscoring the need for compositional analysis to diagnose latent risks in generative speech.




Abstract:Recent LLMs have demonstrated sophisticated problem-solving capabilities on various benchmarks through advanced reasoning algorithms. However, the key research question of identifying reasoning steps that balance complexity and computational efficiency remains unsolved. Recent research has increasingly drawn upon psychological theories to explore strategies for optimizing cognitive pathways. The LLM's final outputs and intermediate steps are regarded as System 1 and System 2, respectively. However, an in-depth exploration of the System 2 reasoning is still lacking. Therefore, we propose a novel psychologically backed Scaffold Reasoning framework for code debugging, which encompasses the Scaffold Stream, Analytic Stream, and Integration Stream. The construction of reference code within the Scaffold Stream is integrated with the buggy code analysis results produced by the Analytic Stream through the Integration Stream. Our framework achieves an 88.91% pass rate and an average inference time of 5.36 seconds per-problem on DebugBench, outperforming other reasoning approaches across various LLMs in both reasoning accuracy and efficiency. Further analyses elucidate the advantages and limitations of various cognitive pathways across varying problem difficulties and bug types. Our findings also corroborate the alignment of the proposed Scaffold Reasoning framework with human cognitive processes.