Daily Papers

The Large Language Model Bias Index (LLMBI) is a pioneering approach designed to quantify and address biases inherent in large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4. We recognise the increasing prevalence and impact of LLMs across diverse sectors. This research introduces a novel metric, LLMBI, to systematically measure and mitigate biases potentially skewing model responses. We formulated LLMBI using a composite scoring system incorporating multiple dimensions of bias, including but not limited to age, gender, and racial biases. To operationalise this metric, we engaged in a multi-step process involving collecting and annotating LLM responses, applying sophisticated Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques for bias detection, and computing the LLMBI score through a specially crafted mathematical formula. The formula integrates weighted averages of various bias dimensions, a penalty for dataset diversity deficiencies, and a correction for sentiment biases. Our empirical analysis, conducted using responses from OpenAI's API, employs advanced sentiment analysis as a representative method for bias detection. The research reveals LLMs, whilst demonstrating impressive capabilities in text generation, exhibit varying degrees of bias across different dimensions. LLMBI provides a quantifiable measure to compare biases across models and over time, offering a vital tool for systems engineers, researchers and regulators in enhancing the fairness and reliability of LLMs. It highlights the potential of LLMs in mimicking unbiased human-like responses. Additionally, it underscores the necessity of continuously monitoring and recalibrating such models to align with evolving societal norms and ethical standards.

As LLMs are increasingly used as judges in code applications, they should be evaluated in realistic interactive settings that capture partial context and ambiguous intent. We present TRACE (Tool for Rubric Analysis in Code Evaluation), a framework that evaluates LLM judges' ability to predict human preferences and automatically extracts rubric items to reveal systematic biases in how humans and models weigh each item. Across three modalities -- chat-based programming, IDE autocompletion, and instructed code editing -- we use TRACE to measure how well LLM judges align with developer preferences. Among 13 different models, the best judges underperform human annotators by 12-23%. TRACE identifies 35 significant sources of misalignment between humans and judges across interaction modalities, the majority of which correspond to existing software engineering code quality criteria. For example, in chat-based coding, judges are biased towards longer code explanations while humans prefer shorter ones. We find significant misalignment on the majority of existing code quality dimensions, showing alignment gaps between LLM judges and human preference in realistic coding applications.

Evaluating the quality of search, ranking and RAG systems traditionally requires a significant number of human relevance annotations. In recent times, several deployed systems have explored the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated judges for this task while their inherent biases prevent direct use for metric estimation. We present a statistical framework extending Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that combines minimal human annotations with LLM judgments to produce reliable estimates of metrics which require sub-instance annotations. Our method requires as few as 100 human-annotated queries and 10,000 unlabeled examples, reducing annotation requirements significantly compared to traditional approaches. We formulate our proposed framework (PRECISE) for inference of relevance uplift for an LLM-based query reformulation application, extending PPI to sub-instance annotations at the query-document level. By reformulating the metric-integration space, we reduced the computational complexity from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K), where |C| represents corpus size (in order of millions). Detailed experiments across prominent retrieval datasets demonstrate that our method reduces the variance of estimates for the business-critical Precision@K metric, while effectively correcting for LLM bias in low-resource settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are helping millions of users write texts about diverse issues, and in doing so expose users to different ideas and perspectives. This creates concerns about issue bias, where an LLM tends to present just one perspective on a given issue, which in turn may influence how users think about this issue. So far, it has not been possible to measure which issue biases LLMs actually manifest in real user interactions, making it difficult to address the risks from biased LLMs. Therefore, we create IssueBench: a set of 2.49m realistic prompts for measuring issue bias in LLM writing assistance, which we construct based on 3.9k templates (e.g. "write a blog about") and 212 political issues (e.g. "AI regulation") from real user interactions. Using IssueBench, we show that issue biases are common and persistent in state-of-the-art LLMs. We also show that biases are remarkably similar across models, and that all models align more with US Democrat than Republican voter opinion on a subset of issues. IssueBench can easily be adapted to include other issues, templates, or tasks. By enabling robust and realistic measurement, we hope that IssueBench can bring a new quality of evidence to ongoing discussions about LLM biases and how to address them.

Existing cultural commonsense benchmarks treat nations as monolithic, assuming uniform practices within national boundaries. But does cultural commonsense hold uniformly within a nation, or does it vary at the sub-national level? We introduce Indica, the first benchmark designed to test LLMs' ability to address this question, focusing on India - a nation of 28 states, 8 union territories, and 22 official languages. We collect human-annotated answers from five Indian regions (North, South, East, West, and Central) across 515 questions spanning 8 domains of everyday life, yielding 1,630 region-specific question-answer pairs. Strikingly, only 39.4% of questions elicit agreement across all five regions, demonstrating that cultural commonsense in India is predominantly regional, not national. We evaluate eight state-of-the-art LLMs and find two critical gaps: models achieve only 13.4%-20.9% accuracy on region-specific questions, and they exhibit geographic bias, over-selecting Central and North India as the "default" (selected 30-40% more often than expected) while under-representing East and West. Beyond India, our methodology provides a generalizable framework for evaluating cultural commonsense in any culturally heterogeneous nation, from question design grounded in anthropological taxonomy, to regional data collection, to bias measurement.

While the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have been studied in both Simplified and Traditional Chinese, it is yet unclear whether LLMs exhibit differential performance when prompted in these two variants of written Chinese. This understanding is critical, as disparities in the quality of LLM responses can perpetuate representational harms by ignoring the different cultural contexts underlying Simplified versus Traditional Chinese, and can exacerbate downstream harms in LLM-facilitated decision-making in domains such as education or hiring. To investigate potential LLM performance disparities, we design two benchmark tasks that reflect real-world scenarios: regional term choice (prompting the LLM to name a described item which is referred to differently in Mainland China and Taiwan), and regional name choice (prompting the LLM to choose who to hire from a list of names in both Simplified and Traditional Chinese). For both tasks, we audit the performance of 11 leading commercial LLM services and open-sourced models -- spanning those primarily trained on English, Simplified Chinese, or Traditional Chinese. Our analyses indicate that biases in LLM responses are dependent on both the task and prompting language: while most LLMs disproportionately favored Simplified Chinese responses in the regional term choice task, they surprisingly favored Traditional Chinese names in the regional name choice task. We find that these disparities may arise from differences in training data representation, written character preferences, and tokenization of Simplified and Traditional Chinese. These findings highlight the need for further analysis of LLM biases; as such, we provide an open-sourced benchmark dataset to foster reproducible evaluations of future LLM behavior across Chinese language variants (https://github.com/brucelyu17/SC-TC-Bench).

LLMs are increasingly powerful and widely used to assist users in a variety of tasks. This use risks the introduction of LLM biases to consequential decisions such as job hiring, human performance evaluation, and criminal sentencing. Bias in NLP systems along the lines of gender and ethnicity has been widely studied, especially for specific stereotypes (e.g., Asians are good at math). In this paper, we investigate bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty, measuring subtler correlated decisions that LLMs make between social groups and unrelated positive and negative attributes. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the ``what is beautiful is good'' bias found in people in experimental psychology. We introduce a template-generated dataset of sentence completion tasks that asks the model to select the most appropriate attribute to complete an evaluative statement about a person described as a member of a specific social group. We also reverse the completion task to select the social group based on an attribute. We report the correlations that we find for 4 cutting-edge LLMs. This dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress in more generalized biases and the templating technique can be used to expand the benchmark with minimal additional human annotation.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have positioned them as powerful tools for clinical decision-making, with rapidly expanding applications in healthcare. However, concerns about bias remain a significant challenge in the clinical implementation of LLMs, particularly regarding gender and ethnicity. This research investigates the evaluation and mitigation of bias in LLMs applied to complex clinical cases, focusing on gender and ethnicity biases. We introduce a novel Counterfactual Patient Variations (CPV) dataset derived from the JAMA Clinical Challenge. Using this dataset, we built a framework for bias evaluation, employing both Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) and corresponding explanations. We explore prompting with eight LLMs and fine-tuning as debiasing methods. Our findings reveal that addressing social biases in LLMs requires a multidimensional approach as mitigating gender bias can occur while introducing ethnicity biases, and that gender bias in LLM embeddings varies significantly across medical specialities. We demonstrate that evaluating both MCQ response and explanation processes is crucial, as correct responses can be based on biased reasoning. We provide a framework for evaluating LLM bias in real-world clinical cases, offer insights into the complex nature of bias in these models, and present strategies for bias mitigation.

Large Language Models (LLMs), now used daily by millions of users, can encode societal biases, exposing their users to representational harms. A large body of scholarship on LLM bias exists but it predominantly adopts a Western-centric frame and attends comparatively less to bias levels and potential harms in the Global South. In this paper, we quantify stereotypical bias in popular LLMs according to an Indian-centric frame and compare bias levels between the Indian and Western contexts. To do this, we develop a novel dataset which we call Indian-BhED (Indian Bias Evaluation Dataset), containing stereotypical and anti-stereotypical examples for caste and religion contexts. We find that the majority of LLMs tested are strongly biased towards stereotypes in the Indian context, especially as compared to the Western context. We finally investigate Instruction Prompting as a simple intervention to mitigate such bias and find that it significantly reduces both stereotypical and anti-stereotypical biases in the majority of cases for GPT-3.5. The findings of this work highlight the need for including more diverse voices when evaluating LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied across various domains of finance. Since their training data are largely derived from human-authored corpora, LLMs may inherit a range of human biases. Behavioral biases can lead to instability and uncertainty in decision-making, particularly when processing financial information. However, existing research on LLM bias has mainly focused on direct questioning or simplified, general-purpose settings, with limited consideration of the complex real-world financial environments and high-risk, context-sensitive, multilingual financial misinformation detection tasks (\mfmd). In this work, we propose \mfmdscen, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating behavioral biases of LLMs in \mfmd across diverse economic scenarios. In collaboration with financial experts, we construct three types of complex financial scenarios: (i) role- and personality-based, (ii) role- and region-based, and (iii) role-based scenarios incorporating ethnicity and religious beliefs. We further develop a multilingual financial misinformation dataset covering English, Chinese, Greek, and Bengali. By integrating these scenarios with misinformation claims, \mfmdscen enables a systematic evaluation of 22 mainstream LLMs. Our findings reveal that pronounced behavioral biases persist across both commercial and open-source models. This project will be available at https://github.com/lzw108/FMD.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in educational tasks such as providing writing suggestions to students. Despite their potential, LLMs are known to harbor inherent biases which may negatively impact learners. Previous studies have investigated bias in models and data representations separately, neglecting the potential impact of LLM bias on human writing. In this paper, we investigate how bias transfers through an AI writing support pipeline. We conduct a large-scale user study with 231 students writing business case peer reviews in German. Students are divided into five groups with different levels of writing support: one classroom group with feature-based suggestions and four groups recruited from Prolific -- a control group with no assistance, two groups with suggestions from fine-tuned GPT-2 and GPT-3 models, and one group with suggestions from pre-trained GPT-3.5. Using GenBit gender bias analysis, Word Embedding Association Tests (WEAT), and Sentence Embedding Association Test (SEAT) we evaluate the gender bias at various stages of the pipeline: in model embeddings, in suggestions generated by the models, and in reviews written by students. Our results demonstrate that there is no significant difference in gender bias between the resulting peer reviews of groups with and without LLM suggestions. Our research is therefore optimistic about the use of AI writing support in the classroom, showcasing a context where bias in LLMs does not transfer to students' responses.

Large language models (LLMs) offer an inexpensive yet powerful way to annotate text, but are often inconsistent when compared with experts. These errors can bias downstream estimates of population parameters such as regression coefficients and causal effects. To mitigate this bias, researchers have developed debiasing methods such as Design-based Supervised Learning (DSL) and Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI), which promise valid estimation by combining LLM annotations with a limited number of expensive expert annotations. Although these methods produce consistent estimates under theoretical assumptions, it is unknown how they compare in finite samples of sizes encountered in applied research. We make two contributions: First, we study how each method's performance scales with the number of expert annotations, highlighting regimes where LLM bias or limited expert labels significantly affect results. Second, we compare DSL and PPI across a range of tasks, finding that although both achieve low bias with large datasets, DSL often outperforms PPI on bias reduction and empirical efficiency, but its performance is less consistent across datasets. Our findings indicate that there is a bias-variance tradeoff at the level of debiasing methods, calling for more research on developing metrics for quantifying their efficiency in finite samples.

Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing every aspect of society. They are increasingly used in problem-solving tasks to substitute human assessment and reasoning. LLMs are trained on what humans write and are thus exposed to human bias. We evaluate whether LLMs inherit one of the most widespread human biases: overconfidence. We algorithmically construct reasoning problems with known ground truths. We prompt LLMs to answer these problems and assess the confidence in their answers, closely following similar protocols in human experiments. We find that all five LLMs we study are overconfident: they overestimate the probability that their answer is correct between 20% and 60%. Humans have accuracy similar to the more advanced LLMs, but far lower overconfidence. Although humans and LLMs are similarly biased in questions which they are certain they answered correctly, a key difference emerges between them: LLM bias increases sharply relative to humans if they become less sure that their answers are correct. We also show that LLM input has ambiguous effects on human decision making: LLM input leads to an increase in the accuracy, but it more than doubles the extent of overconfidence in the answers.

Wu et al. (2026) showed that most frontier large language models (LLMs) recommend a sponsored, roughly twice-as-expensive flight when their system prompt contains a soft sponsorship cue. We reproduce their evaluation on ten open-weight chat models plus the two of their twenty-three models that are still reachable today (gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-4o). All reported rates in this paper are produced under the same judge the original paper used (gpt-4o); we additionally store every label under an open-weight (gpt-oss-120b) and a smaller proprietary (gpt-4o-mini) judge for an ablation. Three findings emerge. First, a prose description of an LLM evaluation pipeline is not, on its own, sufficient for accurate reproduction: we surfaced three silent implementation failures that each shifted a reported rate by tens of percentage points. Second, the central claims do generalise - the gpt-3.5-turbo logistic-regression intercept of alpha = 0.81 is within four points of the original alpha = 0.86, and 200 of 200 trials on gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4o promote a payday lender to a financially distressed user. Third, a thirty-token user prompt that asks the assistant for a neutral comparison table first cuts sponsored recommendation from 46.9% to 1.0% averaged across our ten open-source models, and from 53.0% to 0% averaged across the two OpenAI models. AI literacy and price-comparison portals are likely market-level mitigations; the harmful-product cell is bounded by neither. Raw data, labels and analysis scripts are at https://github.com/akmaier/Paper-LLM-Ads .

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel in generating responses based on visual inputs. However, they often suffer from a bias towards generating responses similar to their pretraining corpus, overshadowing the importance of visual information. We treat this bias as a "preference" for pretraining statistics, which hinders the model's grounding in visual input. To mitigate this issue, we propose Bootstrapped Preference Optimization (BPO), which conducts preference learning with datasets containing negative responses bootstrapped from the model itself. Specifically, we propose the following two strategies: 1) using distorted image inputs to the MLLM for eliciting responses that contain signified pretraining bias; 2) leveraging text-based LLM to explicitly inject erroneous but common elements into the original response. Those undesirable responses are paired with original annotated responses from the datasets to construct the preference dataset, which is subsequently utilized to perform preference learning. Our approach effectively suppresses pretrained LLM bias, enabling enhanced grounding in visual inputs. Extensive experimentation demonstrates significant performance improvements across multiple benchmarks, advancing the state-of-the-art in multimodal conversational systems.

Counterfactual prompting (i.e., perturbing a single factor and measuring output change) is widely used to evaluate things like LLM bias and CoT faithfulness. But in this work we argue that observed effects cannot be attributed to the targeted factor without accounting for baseline ``meaning-preserving'' modifications to text that establish general model sensitivity. This is because every counterfactual edit is a compound treatment that bundles the variable of interest with incidental surface-form variation; this violates treatment variation irrelevance. We observe prediction flip rates on MedQA of 14.9% when we surgically change patient gender. However, this is statistically indistinguishable from the flip rates induced by simply paraphrasing inputs (14.1%). In this case, it would therefore be unwarranted to conclude that the LLM is especially sensitive to patient gender. To account for this and robustly measure the effects of targeted interventions, we propose a framework in which we compare (via statistical testing) differences observed under target interventions to those induced by paraphrasing inputs. We then use this framework to revisit a analysis done on the MedPerturb dataset, which reported evidence of model sensitivity to patient demographics and stylistic cues. We find that these effects largely dissipate when we account for general model sensitivity, with only 5 of 120 tests reaching statistical significance. Applying the same framework to occupational biography classification, we detect clearly significant directional gender bias, showing that the framework identifies real directional effects even when they are small. We evaluate a range of metrics -- aggregate, per-sample distributional, and regression -- and find that per-sample metrics are dramatically more powerful than aggregate metrics and regression powerfully and uniquely characterizes effect direction and magnitude.

Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We discovered that such a contrary is due to LLM's bias in evaluating their own output. In this paper, we formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation - using two statistics. We analyze six LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Gemini, LLaMA2, Mixtral and DeepSeek) on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks. We find that self-bias is prevalent in all examined LLMs across multiple languages and tasks. Our analysis reveals that while the self-refine pipeline improves the fluency and understandability of model outputs, it further amplifies self-bias. To mitigate such biases, we discover that larger model size and external feedback with accurate assessment can significantly reduce bias in the self-refine pipeline, leading to actual performance improvement in downstream tasks. The code and data are released at https://github.com/xu1998hz/llm_self_bias.

Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization because they better capture semantic information, are better at reasoning, and are more robust to paraphrasing. However, LLM judges show biases for length and order among others, and are vulnerable to various adversarial input prompts. While recent studies have looked into these biases, few have analyzed them at a more granular level in relation to a well-defined overlap metric. In this work we provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization. We test 9 recent LLMs with parameter counts ranging from 1 billion to 12 billion, including variants of Gemma 3 and LLaMA 3. We find that LLM judges increasingly prefer summaries generated by other LLMs over those written by humans as the similarities (as measured by ROUGE and BLEU) between the judged summaries decrease, and this pattern extends to all but one model tested, and exists regardless of the models' own position biases. Additionally, we find that models struggle to judge even summaries with limited overlaps, suggesting that LLM-as-a-judge in the summary domain should rely on techniques beyond a simple comparison.

Large language models (LLMs) can pass explicit social bias tests but still harbor implicit biases, similar to humans who endorse egalitarian beliefs yet exhibit subtle biases. Measuring such implicit biases can be a challenge: as LLMs become increasingly proprietary, it may not be possible to access their embeddings and apply existing bias measures; furthermore, implicit biases are primarily a concern if they affect the actual decisions that these systems make. We address both challenges by introducing two new measures of bias: LLM Implicit Bias, a prompt-based method for revealing implicit bias; and LLM Decision Bias, a strategy to detect subtle discrimination in decision-making tasks. Both measures are based on psychological research: LLM Implicit Bias adapts the Implicit Association Test, widely used to study the automatic associations between concepts held in human minds; and LLM Decision Bias operationalizes psychological results indicating that relative evaluations between two candidates, not absolute evaluations assessing each independently, are more diagnostic of implicit biases. Using these measures, we found pervasive stereotype biases mirroring those in society in 8 value-aligned models across 4 social categories (race, gender, religion, health) in 21 stereotypes (such as race and criminality, race and weapons, gender and science, age and negativity). Our prompt-based LLM Implicit Bias measure correlates with existing language model embedding-based bias methods, but better predicts downstream behaviors measured by LLM Decision Bias. These new prompt-based measures draw from psychology's long history of research into measuring stereotype biases based on purely observable behavior; they expose nuanced biases in proprietary value-aligned LLMs that appear unbiased according to standard benchmarks.

As large language models take on growing roles as automated evaluators in practical settings, a critical question arises: Can individuals persuade an LLM judge to assign unfairly high scores? This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks, where correctness should be independent of stylistic variation. Grounded in Aristotle's rhetorical principles, we formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses. Across six math benchmarks, we find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion. Notably, increasing model size does not substantially mitigate this vulnerability. Further analysis demonstrates that combining multiple persuasion techniques amplifies the bias, and pairwise evaluation is likewise susceptible. Moreover, the persuasive effect persists under counter prompting strategies, highlighting a critical vulnerability in LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines and underscoring the need for robust defenses against persuasion-based attacks.

Improvements in model construction, including fortified safety guardrails, allow Large language models (LLMs) to increasingly pass standard safety checks. However, LLMs sometimes slip into revealing harmful behavior, such as expressing racist viewpoints, during conversations. To analyze this systematically, we introduce CoBia, a suite of lightweight adversarial attacks that allow us to refine the scope of conditions under which LLMs depart from normative or ethical behavior in conversations. CoBia creates a constructed conversation where the model utters a biased claim about a social group. We then evaluate whether the model can recover from the fabricated bias claim and reject biased follow-up questions. We evaluate 11 open-source as well as proprietary LLMs for their outputs related to six socio-demographic categories that are relevant to individual safety and fair treatment, i.e., gender, race, religion, nationality, sex orientation, and others. Our evaluation is based on established LLM-based bias metrics, and we compare the results against human judgments to scope out the LLMs' reliability and alignment. The results suggest that purposefully constructed conversations reliably reveal bias amplification and that LLMs often fail to reject biased follow-up questions during dialogue. This form of stress-testing highlights deeply embedded biases that can be surfaced through interaction. Code and artifacts are available at https://github.com/nafisenik/CoBia.

Large language models (LLMs), even when specifically trained to process long input contexts, struggle to capture relevant information located in the middle of their input. This phenomenon has been known as the lost-in-the-middle problem. In this work, we make three contributions. First, we set out to understand the factors that cause this phenomenon. In doing so, we establish a connection between lost-in-the-middle to LLMs' intrinsic attention bias: LLMs exhibit a U-shaped attention bias where the tokens at the beginning and at the end of its input receive higher attention, regardless of their relevance. Second, we mitigate this positional bias through a calibration mechanism, found-in-the-middle, that allows the model to attend to contexts faithfully according to their relevance, even though when they are in the middle. Third, we show found-in-the-middle not only achieves better performance in locating relevant information within a long context, but also eventually leads to improved retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) performance across various tasks, outperforming existing methods by up to 15 percentage points. These findings open up future directions in understanding LLM attention bias and its potential consequences.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can inadvertently reflect societal biases present in their training data, leading to harmful or prejudiced outputs. In the Indian context, our empirical evaluations across a suite of models reveal that biases around caste and religion are particularly salient. Yet, most existing mitigation strategies are Western-centric and fail to address these local nuances. We propose AMBEDKAR, a framework inspired by the egalitarian vision of Dr B. R. Ambedkar, architect of the Indian Constitution, to guide LLM outputs toward fairness, neutrality, and inclusion in line with Articles 14 to 17. Our approach introduces a Constitution-Aware Decoding Layer, guided by the AI Constitution of India and applied only at inference time, without any parameter updates to the base model. We incorporate a speculative decoding algorithm that proactively reduces casteist and communal bias during generation. This mitigation layer operates directly within the decoding process, avoiding changes to model internals and lowering the computational and infrastructural costs associated with retraining. We reinterpret speculative decoding not merely as an efficiency tool but as a mechanism for fairness. In this framework, a Small Language Model (SLM) acts as a potentially biased generator, while a constitutionally guided Large Language Model (LLM) serves as the verifier. Rather than accelerating generation, the LLM enforces bias-robust trajectories in the SLM outputs. This inversion of roles gives rise to a fairness-by-speculation paradigm. Our approach yields an absolute reduction of bias up to 26.41 percent compared to baseline. Our source code, datasets, and results are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AMBEDKAR-983B/

Retrieval Augmented Generation enhances LLM accuracy by adding passages retrieved from an external corpus to the LLM prompt. This paper investigates how positional bias - the tendency of LLMs to weight information differently based on its position in the prompt - affects not only the LLM's capability to capitalize on relevant passages, but also its susceptibility to distracting passages. Through extensive experiments on three benchmarks, we show how state-of-the-art retrieval pipelines, while attempting to retrieve relevant passages, systematically bring highly distracting ones to the top ranks, with over 60% of queries containing at least one highly distracting passage among the top-10 retrieved passages. As a result, the impact of the LLM positional bias, which in controlled settings is often reported as very prominent by related works, is actually marginal in real scenarios since both relevant and distracting passages are, in turn, penalized. Indeed, our findings reveal that sophisticated strategies that attempt to rearrange the passages based on LLM positional preferences do not perform better than random shuffling.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enhanced their ability to process long input contexts. This development is particularly crucial for tasks that involve retrieving knowledge from an external datastore, which can result in long inputs. However, recent studies show a positional bias in LLMs, demonstrating varying performance depending on the location of useful information within the input sequence. In this study, we conduct extensive experiments to investigate the root causes of positional bias. Our findings indicate that the primary contributor to LLM positional bias stems from the inherent positional preferences of different models. We demonstrate that merely employing prompt-based solutions is inadequate for overcoming the positional preferences. To address this positional bias issue of a pre-trained LLM, we developed a Position-Aware Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning (PAPEFT) approach which is composed of a data augmentation technique and a parameter efficient adapter, enhancing a uniform attention distribution across the input context. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed approach effectively reduces positional bias, improving LLMs' effectiveness in handling long context sequences for various tasks that require externally retrieved knowledge.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has developed evaluation frameworks to assess reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address LLM internal inconsistency. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-Judge methods, leading to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge on alignment tasks by defining more theoretically interpretable evaluation metrics and explicitly mitigating LLM internal inconsistency from reliability metrics. We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges, which facilitates practitioners to choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. In the experiments, we examine effects of diverse prompt templates on LLM-judge reliability and also demonstrate our developed framework by comparing various LLM judges on two common alignment datasets (i.e., TL;DR Summarization and HH-RLHF-Helpfulness). Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are quickly becoming ubiquitous, but the implications for social science research are not yet well understood. This paper asks whether LLMs can help us analyse large-N qualitative data from open-ended interviews, with an application to transcripts of interviews with Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazaar, Bangladesh. We find that a great deal of caution is needed in using LLMs to annotate text as there is a risk of introducing biases that can lead to misleading inferences. We here mean bias in the technical sense, that the errors that LLMs make in annotating interview transcripts are not random with respect to the characteristics of the interview subjects. Training simpler supervised models on high-quality human annotations with flexible coding leads to less measurement error and bias than LLM annotations. Therefore, given that some high quality annotations are necessary in order to asses whether an LLM introduces bias, we argue that it is probably preferable to train a bespoke model on these annotations than it is to use an LLM for annotation.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based judgments leverage powerful LLMs to efficiently evaluate candidate content and provide judgment scores. However, the inherent biases and vulnerabilities of LLM-generated judgments raise concerns, underscoring the urgent need for distinguishing them in sensitive scenarios like academic peer reviewing. In this work, we propose and formalize the task of judgment detection and systematically investigate the detectability of LLM-generated judgments. Unlike LLM-generated text detection, judgment detection relies solely on judgment scores and candidates, reflecting real-world scenarios where textual feedback is often unavailable in the detection process. Our preliminary analysis shows that existing LLM-generated text detection methods perform poorly given their incapability to capture the interaction between judgment scores and candidate content -- an aspect crucial for effective judgment detection. Inspired by this, we introduce J-Detector, a lightweight and transparent neural detector augmented with explicitly extracted linguistic and LLM-enhanced features to link LLM judges' biases with candidates' properties for accurate detection. Experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of J-Detector and show how its interpretability enables quantifying biases in LLM judges. Finally, we analyze key factors affecting the detectability of LLM-generated judgments and validate the practical utility of judgment detection in real-world scenarios.

Critical peer review of scientific manuscripts presents a significant challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs), partly due to data limitations and the complexity of expert reasoning. This report introduces Persistent Workflow Prompting (PWP), a potentially broadly applicable prompt engineering methodology designed to bridge this gap using standard LLM chat interfaces (zero-code, no APIs). We present a proof-of-concept PWP prompt for the critical analysis of experimental chemistry manuscripts, featuring a hierarchical, modular architecture (structured via Markdown) that defines detailed analysis workflows. We develop this PWP prompt through iterative application of meta-prompting techniques and meta-reasoning aimed at systematically codifying expert review workflows, including tacit knowledge. Submitted once at the start of a session, this PWP prompt equips the LLM with persistent workflows triggered by subsequent queries, guiding modern reasoning LLMs through systematic, multimodal evaluations. Demonstrations show the PWP-guided LLM identifying major methodological flaws in a test case while mitigating LLM input bias and performing complex tasks, including distinguishing claims from evidence, integrating text/photo/figure analysis to infer parameters, executing quantitative feasibility checks, comparing estimates against claims, and assessing a priori plausibility. To ensure transparency and facilitate replication, we provide full prompts, detailed demonstration analyses, and logs of interactive chats as supplementary resources. Beyond the specific application, this work offers insights into the meta-development process itself, highlighting the potential of PWP, informed by detailed workflow formalization, to enable sophisticated analysis using readily available LLMs for complex scientific tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) in mental healthcare risk propagating biases that reinforce stigma and harm marginalized groups. While previous research identified concerning trends, systematic methods for detecting intersectional biases remain limited. This work introduces a multi-hop question answering (MHQA) framework to explore LLM response biases in mental health discourse. We analyze content from the Interpretable Mental Health Instruction (IMHI) dataset across symptom presentation, coping mechanisms, and treatment approaches. Using systematic tagging across age, race, gender, and socioeconomic status, we investigate bias patterns at demographic intersections. We evaluate four LLMs: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Jamba 1.6, Gemma 3, and Llama 4, revealing systematic disparities across sentiment, demographics, and mental health conditions. Our MHQA approach demonstrates superior detection compared to conventional methods, identifying amplification points where biases magnify through sequential reasoning. We implement two debiasing techniques: Roleplay Simulation and Explicit Bias Reduction, achieving 66-94% bias reductions through few-shot prompting with BBQ dataset examples. These findings highlight critical areas where LLMs reproduce mental healthcare biases, providing actionable insights for equitable AI development.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in user-facing applications, from providing medical consultations to job interview advice. Recent research suggests that these models are becoming increasingly proficient at inferring identity information about the author of a piece of text from linguistic patterns as subtle as the choice of a few words. However, little is known about how LLMs use this information in their decision-making in real-world applications. We perform the first comprehensive analysis of how identity markers present in a user's writing bias LLM responses across five different high-stakes LLM applications in the domains of medicine, law, politics, government benefits, and job salaries. We find that LLMs are extremely sensitive to markers of identity in user queries and that race, gender, and age consistently influence LLM responses in these applications. For instance, when providing medical advice, we find that models apply different standards of care to individuals of different ethnicities for the same symptoms; we find that LLMs are more likely to alter answers to align with a conservative (liberal) political worldview when asked factual questions by older (younger) individuals; and that LLMs recommend lower salaries for non-White job applicants and higher salaries for women compared to men. Taken together, these biases mean that the use of off-the-shelf LLMs for these applications may cause harmful differences in medical care, foster wage gaps, and create different political factual realities for people of different identities. Beyond providing an analysis, we also provide new tools for evaluating how subtle encoding of identity in users' language choices impacts model decisions. Given the serious implications of these findings, we recommend that similar thorough assessments of LLM use in user-facing applications are conducted before future deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have attained human-level accuracy on medical question-answer (QA) benchmarks. However, their limitations in navigating open-ended clinical scenarios have recently been shown, raising concerns about the robustness and generalizability of LLM reasoning across diverse, real-world medical tasks. To probe potential LLM failure modes in clinical problem-solving, we present the medical abstraction and reasoning corpus (M-ARC). M-ARC assesses clinical reasoning through scenarios designed to exploit the Einstellung effect -- the fixation of thought arising from prior experience, targeting LLM inductive biases toward inflexible pattern matching from their training data rather than engaging in flexible reasoning. We find that LLMs, including current state-of-the-art o1 and Gemini models, perform poorly compared to physicians on M-ARC, often demonstrating lack of commonsense medical reasoning and a propensity to hallucinate. In addition, uncertainty estimation analyses indicate that LLMs exhibit overconfidence in their answers, despite their limited accuracy. The failure modes revealed by M-ARC in LLM medical reasoning underscore the need to exercise caution when deploying these models in clinical settings.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of its evaluation remain a critical issue. A core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in terms of known biases and their impact on evaluation outcomes, while automated and systematic exploration of potential unknown biases is still lacking. Nevertheless, such exploration is crucial for enhancing the robustness and reliability of evaluations. To bridge this gap, we propose BiasScope, a LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. BiasScope can uncover potential biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. It overcomes the limitations of existing approaches, transforming bias discovery from a passive process relying on manual effort and predefined bias lists into an active and comprehensive automated exploration. Moreover, based on BiasScope, we propose JudgeBench-Pro, an extended version of JudgeBench and a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge. Strikingly, even powerful LLMs as evaluators show error rates above 50\% on JudgeBench-Pro, underscoring the urgent need to strengthen evaluation robustness and to mitigate potential biases further.

Recent advancements in natural language processing, especially the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), have opened exciting possibilities for constructing computational simulations designed to replicate human behavior accurately. However, LLMs are complex statistical learners without straightforward deductive rules, making them prone to unexpected behaviors. In this study, we highlight the limitations of LLMs in simulating human interactions, particularly focusing on LLMs' ability to simulate political debates. Our findings indicate a tendency for LLM agents to conform to the model's inherent social biases despite being directed to debate from certain political perspectives. This tendency results in behavioral patterns that seem to deviate from well-established social dynamics among humans. We reinforce these observations using an automatic self-fine-tuning method, which enables us to manipulate the biases within the LLM and demonstrate that agents subsequently align with the altered biases. These results underscore the need for further research to develop methods that help agents overcome these biases, a critical step toward creating more realistic simulations.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases - particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt - compromise its reliability. This exploratory study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings, introducing three metrics: repetition stability, position consistency, and preference fairness. Our experiments, involving 15 LLM judges across MTBench and DevBench with 22 tasks and approximately 40 solution-generating models, result in over 150,000 evaluation instances. We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias. The findings confirm that position bias is not due to random chance and varies significantly across judges and tasks. While position bias is weakly influenced by the length of prompt components, it is strongly affected by the quality gap between solutions. Our agreement and disagreement analysis among judges further provides insights into the distribution of judging difficulty across the dataset, and highlights the potential for dataset modifications.

This paper reveals that LLM-powered agents exhibit not only demographic bias (e.g., gender, religion) but also intergroup bias under minimal "us" versus "them" cues. When such group boundaries align with the agent-human divide, a new bias risk emerges: agents may treat other AI agents as the ingroup and humans as the outgroup. To examine this risk, we conduct a controlled multi-agent social simulation and find that agents display consistent intergroup bias in an all-agent setting. More critically, this bias persists even in human-facing interactions when agents are uncertain about whether the counterpart is truly human, revealing a belief-dependent fragility in bias suppression toward humans. Motivated by this observation, we identify a new attack surface rooted in identity beliefs and formalize a Belief Poisoning Attack (BPA) that can manipulate agent identity beliefs and induce outgroup bias toward humans. Extensive experiments demonstrate both the prevalence of agent intergroup bias and the severity of BPA across settings, while also showing that our proposed defenses can mitigate the risk. These findings are expected to inform safer agent design and motivate more robust safeguards for human-facing agents.

Automated evaluation leveraging large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM evaluators or LLM-as-a-judge, has been widely used in measuring the performance of dialogue systems. However, the self-preference bias in LLMs has posed significant risks, including promoting specific styles or policies intrinsic to the LLMs. Despite the importance of this issue, there is a lack of established methods to measure the self-preference bias quantitatively, and its underlying causes are poorly understood. In this paper, we introduce a novel quantitative metric to measure the self-preference bias. Our experimental results demonstrate that GPT-4 exhibits a significant degree of self-preference bias. To explore the causes, we hypothesize that LLMs may favor outputs that are more familiar to them, as indicated by lower perplexity. We analyze the relationship between LLM evaluations and the perplexities of outputs. Our findings reveal that LLMs assign significantly higher evaluations to outputs with lower perplexity than human evaluators, regardless of whether the outputs were self-generated. This suggests that the essence of the bias lies in perplexity and that the self-preference bias exists because LLMs prefer texts more familiar to them.

We show that training a single d-dimensional steering vector per layer with reinforcement learning, while freezing all base weights, matches the accuracy of fully RL-tuned reasoning models on mathematical-reasoning tasks. On an 8 billion-parameter model this adds only approx 0.0016% additional parameters and reproduces performance across a range of base models and mathematical-reasoning benchmarks. These results tighten the upper bound on the parameter budget required for high-level chain-of-thought reasoning, indicating that millions of adapter weights are unnecessary. The minimal trainable footprint reduces optimizer memory and inter-GPU communication, lowering the overall cost of fine-tuning. Moreover, a logit-lens analysis shows that the learned vectors amplify coherent token directions, providing clearer insight into the model's internal computations.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. Therefore, we identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM-which systematically quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge by using automated and principle-guided modification. Our experiments cover multiple popular language models, and the results indicate that while advanced models have achieved commendable overall performance, significant biases persist in certain specific tasks. Empirical results suggest that there remains room for improvement in the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge. Moreover, we also discuss the explicit and implicit influence of these biases and give some suggestions for the reliable application of LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.

Large language model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling, yet their judgments are often affected by judgment biases. Accurately evaluating these biases is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM-based judges. However, existing studies typically investigate limited biases under a single judge formulation, either generative or discriminative, lacking a comprehensive evaluation. To bridge this gap, we propose JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark for systematically quantifying biases in LLM-based judges. JudgeBiasBench defines a taxonomy of judgment biases across 4 dimensions, and constructs bias-augmented evaluation instances through a controlled bias injection pipeline, covering 12 representative bias types. We conduct extensive experiments across both generative and discriminative judges, revealing that current judges exhibit significant and diverse bias patterns that often compromise the reliability of automated evaluation. To mitigate judgment bias, we propose bias-aware training that explicitly incorporates bias-related attributes into the training process, encouraging judges to disentangle task-relevant quality from bias-correlated cues. By adopting reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges, our methods effectively reduce judgment biases while largely preserving general evaluation capability.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly under scrutiny for perpetuating identity-based discrimination in high-stakes domains such as hiring, particularly against people with disabilities (PwD). However, existing research remains largely Western-centric, overlooking how intersecting forms of marginalization--such as gender and caste--shape experiences of PwD in the Global South. We conduct a comprehensive audit of six LLMs across 2,820 hiring scenarios spanning diverse disability, gender, nationality, and caste profiles. To capture subtle intersectional harms and biases, we introduce ABLEIST (Ableism, Inspiration, Superhumanization, and Tokenism), a set of five ableism-specific and three intersectional harm metrics grounded in disability studies literature. Our results reveal significant increases in ABLEIST harms towards disabled candidates--harms that many state-of-the-art models failed to detect. These harms were further amplified by sharp increases in intersectional harms (e.g., Tokenism) for gender and caste-marginalized disabled candidates, highlighting critical blind spots in current safety tools and the need for intersectional safety evaluations of frontier models in high-stakes domains like hiring.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in various applications, but the reliability of the outcomes remains a challenge. One such challenge is using LLMs-as-judges for direct assessment, i.e., assigning scores from a specified range without any references. We first show that this challenge stems from LLM judge outputs being associated with score range bias, i.e., LLM judge outputs are highly sensitive to pre-defined score ranges, preventing the search for optimal score ranges. We also show that similar biases exist among models from the same family. We then mitigate this bias through contrastive decoding, achieving up to 11.3% relative improvement on average in Spearman correlation with human judgments across different score ranges.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled automatic generation of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, leading to strong performance on tasks such as math and code. However, when reasoning steps reflect social stereotypes (e.g., those related to gender, race or age), they can reinforce harmful associations and lead to misleading conclusions. We present the first systematic evaluation of social bias within LLM-generated reasoning, using the BBQ dataset to analyze both prediction accuracy and bias. Our study spans a wide range of mainstream reasoning models, including instruction-tuned and CoT-augmented variants of DeepSeek-R1 (8B/32B), ChatGPT, and other open-source LLMs. We quantify how biased reasoning steps correlate with incorrect predictions and often lead to stereotype expression. To mitigate reasoning-induced bias, we propose Answer Distribution as Bias Proxy (ADBP), a lightweight mitigation method that detects bias by tracking how model predictions change across incremental reasoning steps. ADBP outperforms a stereotype-free baseline in most cases, mitigating bias and improving the accuracy of LLM outputs. Code will be released upon paper acceptance.

With the growing use of large language models(LLMs) as evaluators, their application has expanded to code evaluation tasks, where they assess the correctness of generated code without relying on reference implementations. While this offers scalability and flexibility, it also raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations? Functionally correct code often exhibits variations-such as differences in variable names, comments, or formatting-that should not influence its correctness. Yet, whether LLM judges can reliably handle these variations remains unclear. We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation and revealing their systematic impact on LLM judges. Across five programming languages and multiple LLMs, we empirically demonstrate that all tested LLM judges are susceptible to both positive and negative biases, resulting in inflated or unfairly low scores. Moreover, we observe that LLM judges remain vulnerable to these biases even when prompted to generate test cases before scoring, highlighting the need for more robust code evaluation methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in the development of reliable LLMs, and the choice of feedback protocol plays a central role in both but remains understudied. In this work, we show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation (absolute scores versus relative preferences) can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In the context of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, we show that pairwise protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation. Generator models can exploit spurious attributes (or distractor features) favored by the LLM judge, resulting in inflated scores for lower-quality outputs. We find that absolute scoring is more robust to such manipulation, producing judgments that better reflect response quality and are less influenced by distractor features. Our results demonstrate that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features, skewing LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and leading to inaccurate conclusions about model quality in benchmark evaluations. Pairwise preferences flip in about 35% of the cases, compared to only 9% for absolute scores. We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.

Automated ad targeting on social media is opaque, creating risks of exploitation and invisibility to external scrutiny. Users may be steered toward harmful content while independent auditing of these processes remains blocked. Large Language Models (LLMs) raise a new concern: the potential to reverse-engineer sensitive user attributes from exposure alone. We introduce a multi-stage auditing framework to investigate these risks. First, a large-scale audit of over 435,000 ad impressions delivered to 891 Australian Facebook users reveals algorithmic biases, including disproportionate Gambling and Politics ads shown to socioeconomically vulnerable and politically aligned groups. Second, a multimodal LLM can reconstruct users' demographic profiles from ad streams, outperforming census-based baselines and matching or exceeding human performance. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that ad streams constitute rich digital footprints for public AI inference, highlighting urgent privacy risks and the need for content-level auditing and governance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content, including professional documents such as recommendation letters. Though bringing convenience, this application also introduces unprecedented fairness concerns. Model-generated reference letters might be directly used by users in professional scenarios. If underlying biases exist in these model-constructed letters, using them without scrutinization could lead to direct societal harms, such as sabotaging application success rates for female applicants. In light of this pressing issue, it is imminent and necessary to comprehensively study fairness issues and associated harms in this real-world use case. In this paper, we critically examine gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters. Drawing inspiration from social science findings, we design evaluation methods to manifest biases through 2 dimensions: (1) biases in language style and (2) biases in lexical content. We further investigate the extent of bias propagation by analyzing the hallucination bias of models, a term that we define to be bias exacerbation in model-hallucinated contents. Through benchmarking evaluation on 2 popular LLMs- ChatGPT and Alpaca, we reveal significant gender biases in LLM-generated recommendation letters. Our findings not only warn against using LLMs for this application without scrutinization, but also illuminate the importance of thoroughly studying hidden biases and harms in LLM-generated professional documents.

Large Language Model (LLM) unlearning aims to erase or suppress undesirable knowledge within the model, offering promise for controlling harmful or private information to prevent misuse. However, recent studies highlight its limited efficacy in real-world scenarios, hindering practical adoption. In this study, we identify a pervasive issue underlying many downstream failures: the effectiveness of existing unlearning methods heavily depends on the form of training samples and frequently fails to generalize to alternate expressions of the same knowledge. We formally characterize this problem as Form-Dependent Bias and systematically investigate its specific manifestation patterns across various downstream tasks. To quantify its prevalence and support future research, we introduce ORT, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the robustness of unlearning methods against variations in knowledge expression. Results reveal that Form-Dependent Bias is both widespread and severe among current techniques. We argue that LLM unlearning should be form-independent to address the endless forms of downstream tasks encountered in real-world security-critical scenarios. Towards this goal, we introduce Rank-one Concept Redirection (ROCR), a novel training-free method, as a promising solution path. ROCR performs unlearning by targeting the invariants in downstream tasks, specifically the activated dangerous concepts. It is capable of modifying model parameters within seconds to redirect the model's perception of a specific unlearning target concept to another harmless concept. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ROCR significantly improves unlearning effectiveness compared to traditional methods while generating highly natural outputs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 and Gemini have significantly advanced artificial intelligence by enabling machines to generate and comprehend human-like text. Despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs are not immune to limitations, including various biases. While much research has explored demographic biases, the cognitive biases in LLMs have not been equally scrutinized. This study delves into anchoring bias, a cognitive bias where initial information disproportionately influences judgment. Utilizing an experimental dataset, we examine how anchoring bias manifests in LLMs and verify the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies. Our findings highlight the sensitivity of LLM responses to biased hints. At the same time, our experiments show that, to mitigate anchoring bias, one needs to collect hints from comprehensive angles to prevent the LLMs from being anchored to individual pieces of information, while simple algorithms such as Chain-of-Thought, Thoughts of Principles, Ignoring Anchor Hints, and Reflection are not sufficient.

Recently, there has been a trend of evaluating the Large Language Model (LLM) quality in the flavor of LLM-as-a-Judge, namely leveraging another LLM to evaluate the current output quality. However, existing judges are proven to be biased, namely they would favor answers which present better superficial quality (such as verbosity, fluency) while ignoring the instruction following ability. In this work, we propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, for closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality, both on probability level and prompt level. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality. We apply our methods on the bias evaluation benchmark, and experiment results show our methods mitigate the bias by a large margin while maintaining a satisfactory evaluation accuracy.

Stories play a pivotal role in human communication, shaping beliefs and morals, particularly in children. As parents increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) to craft bedtime stories, the presence of cultural and gender stereotypes in these narratives raises significant concerns. To address this issue, we present Biased Tales, a comprehensive dataset designed to analyze how biases influence protagonists' attributes and story elements in LLM-generated stories. Our analysis uncovers striking disparities. When the protagonist is described as a girl (as compared to a boy), appearance-related attributes increase by 55.26%. Stories featuring non-Western children disproportionately emphasize cultural heritage, tradition, and family themes far more than those for Western children. Our findings highlight the role of sociocultural bias in making creative AI use more equitable and diverse.

The use of large language models (LLMs) as automated evaluation tools to assess the quality of generated natural language, known as LLMs-as-Judges, has demonstrated promising capabilities and is rapidly gaining widespread attention. However, when applied to pairwise comparisons of candidate responses, LLM-based evaluators often exhibit selection bias. Specifically, their judgments may become inconsistent when the option positions or ID tokens are swapped, compromising the effectiveness and fairness of the evaluation result. To address this challenge, we introduce CalibraEval, a novel label-free method for mitigating selection bias during inference. Specifically, CalibraEval reformulates debiasing as an optimization task aimed at adjusting observed prediction distributions to align with unbiased prediction distributions. To solve this optimization problem, we propose a non-parametric order-preserving algorithm (NOA). This algorithm leverages the partial order relationships between model prediction distributions, thereby eliminating the need for explicit labels and precise mathematical function modeling.Empirical evaluations of LLMs in multiple representative benchmarks demonstrate that CalibraEval effectively mitigates selection bias and improves performance compared to existing debiasing methods. This work marks a step toward building more robust and unbiased automated evaluation frameworks, paving the way for improved reliability in AI-driven assessments

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become pivotal in advancing natural language processing, yet their potential to perpetuate biases poses significant concerns. This paper introduces a new framework employing Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to mitigate gender, racial, and religious biases in LLM-generated English text. By developing a loss function that favors less biased over biased completions, our approach cultivates a preference for respectful and non-discriminatory language in LLMs. We also contribute a manually designed dataset for training LLMs to recognize and correct biases. This dataset encompasses a diverse range of prompts paired with both biased and unbiased completions. Implementing this approach on the Microsoft Phi-2 model, we demonstrate substantial reductions in biased outputs as our model outperforms the baseline model on almost all bias benchmarks. Our model also achieves better performance compared to other open-source models on most benchmarks. By reducing biases in the language generated by the model, our study marks a significant step towards developing more ethical and socially responsible LLMs. We publicly release BiasDPO dataset on HuggingFace.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators, commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, have also attracted growing attention. This approach plays a vital role in aligning LLMs with human judgments, providing accurate and reliable assessments. However, LLM-based judgment models often exhibit judgment preference bias during the evaluation phase, tending to favor responses generated by themselves, undermining the reliability of their judgments. This paper introduces the Group-Based Polling Optimization (Genii), an unsupervised multi-agent collaborative optimization framework that mitigates the inherent judgment preference bias of judgment models. Specifically, Genii integrates various LLM-based judgment models into a multi-agent system and simulates the interactive client-server polling mechanism to optimize each client agent unsupervisedly. Our experiments demonstrate that Genii outperforms supervised models trained on annotated judgment data, while requiring no human-labeled annotations. Genii consistently improves performance across different client agents during the polling, even when weaker models act as server agents. Further analysis reveals that Genii effectively mitigates judgment preference bias of LLM-based judgment models, demonstrating its effectiveness. All codes are available at https://github.com/NEUIR/Genii.

The rapid growth of Large Language Models (LLMs) has put forward the study of biases as a crucial field. It is important to assess the influence of different types of biases embedded in LLMs to ensure fair use in sensitive fields. Although there have been extensive works on bias assessment in English, such efforts are rare and scarce for a major language like Bangla. In this work, we examine two types of social biases in LLM generated outputs for Bangla language. Our main contributions in this work are: (1) bias studies on two different social biases for Bangla (2) a curated dataset for bias measurement benchmarking (3) two different probing techniques for bias detection in the context of Bangla. This is the first work of such kind involving bias assessment of LLMs for Bangla to the best of our knowledge. All our code and resources are publicly available for the progress of bias related research in Bangla NLP.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods in model development. While their combination significantly enhances the efficiency of model training and evaluation, little attention has been given to the potential contamination brought by this new model development paradigm. In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators. To study this issue, we first define three common relatednesses between data generator LLM and judge LLM: being the same model, having an inheritance relationship, and belonging to the same model family. Through extensive experiments, we empirically confirm the bias of judges towards their related student models caused by preference leakage across multiple LLM baselines and benchmarks. Further analysis suggests that preference leakage is a pervasive issue that is harder to detect compared to previously identified biases in LLM-as-a-judge scenarios. All of these findings imply that preference leakage is a widespread and challenging problem in the area of LLM-as-a-judge. We release all codes and data at: https://github.com/David-Li0406/Preference-Leakage.

Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly undermines their reliability and fairness. We focus on a common form of bias: when two reference concepts in the model's concept space, such as sentiment polarities (e.g., "positive" and "negative"), are asymmetrically correlated with a third, target concept, such as a reviewing aspect, the model exhibits unintended bias. For instance, the understanding of "food" should not skew toward any particular sentiment. Existing bias evaluation methods assess behavioral differences of LLMs by constructing labeled data for different social groups and measuring model responses across them, a process that requires substantial human effort and captures only a limited set of social concepts. To overcome these limitations, we propose BiasLens, a test-set-free bias analysis framework based on the structure of the model's vector space. BiasLens combines Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) with Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to extract interpretable concept representations, and quantifies bias by measuring the variation in representational similarity between the target concept and each of the reference concepts. Even without labeled data, BiasLens shows strong agreement with traditional bias evaluation metrics (Spearman correlation r > 0.85). Moreover, BiasLens reveals forms of bias that are difficult to detect using existing methods. For example, in simulated clinical scenarios, a patient's insurance status can cause the LLM to produce biased diagnostic assessments. Overall, BiasLens offers a scalable, interpretable, and efficient paradigm for bias discovery, paving the way for improving fairness and transparency in LLMs.

Detecting machine-generated text is essential for transparency and accountability when deploying large language models (LLMs). Among detection approaches, watermarking is a statistically reliable method by design -- it embeds detectable signals into LLM outputs by biasing their token distributions. However, it has been reported that watermarked LLMs often perform worse on downstream tasks. We propose PUPPET, a framework that fine-tunes an LLM via reinforcement learning to generate text that is both more detectable and better performing on downstream tasks. We use two reward functions: a detector that outputs a machine-class likelihood and an evaluator that measures a task-specific metric. Experiments on long-form QA, summarization, and essay writing show that LLMs trained with PUPPET achieve high detectability competitive with watermarking methods while outperforming them on downstream tasks. The analysis shows that this optimization can be performed efficiently with only a few thousand samples in 1--2 GPU hours. Moreover, these gains are consistent across out-of-domain tasks, different LLM families, and model sizes, and are even robust to paraphrasing attacks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate natural language generation tasks as automated metrics. However, the likelihood, a measure of LLM's plausibility for a sentence, can vary due to superficial differences in sentences, such as word order and sentence structure. It is therefore possible that there might be a likelihood bias if LLMs are used for evaluation: they might overrate sentences with higher likelihoods while underrating those with lower likelihoods. In this paper, we investigate the presence and impact of likelihood bias in LLM-based evaluators. We also propose a method to mitigate the likelihood bias. Our method utilizes highly biased instances as few-shot examples for in-context learning. Our experiments in evaluating the data-to-text and grammatical error correction tasks reveal that several LLMs we test display a likelihood bias. Furthermore, our proposed method successfully mitigates this bias, also improving evaluation performance (in terms of correlation of models with human scores) significantly.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, raising important questions about their biases in LLM-as-a-judge settings. We present a comprehensive benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets. Through investigation of bandwagon, authority, position, and distraction biases, we uncover four key findings: (1) despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, LRMs remain susceptible to the above biases; (2) LRMs demonstrate better robustness than LLMs specifically on fact-related datasets; (3) LRMs exhibit notable position bias, preferring options in later positions; and (4) we identify a novel "superficial reflection bias" where phrases mimicking reasoning (e.g., "wait, let me think...") significantly influence model judgments. To address these biases, we design and evaluate three mitigation strategies: specialized system prompts that reduce judging biases by up to 19\% in preference alignment datasets and 14\% in fact-related datasets, in-context learning that provides up to 27\% improvement on preference tasks but shows inconsistent results on factual tasks, and a self-reflection mechanism that reduces biases by up to 10\% in preference datasets and 16\% in fact-related datasets, with self-reflection proving particularly effective for LRMs. Our work provides crucial insights for developing more reliable LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, especially as LRMs become increasingly deployed as automated judges.

Text-to-image generative models are becoming increasingly popular and accessible to the general public. As these models see large-scale deployments, it is necessary to deeply investigate their safety and fairness to not disseminate and perpetuate any kind of biases. However, existing works focus on detecting closed sets of biases defined a priori, limiting the studies to well-known concepts. In this paper, we tackle the challenge of open-set bias detection in text-to-image generative models presenting OpenBias, a new pipeline that identifies and quantifies the severity of biases agnostically, without access to any precompiled set. OpenBias has three stages. In the first phase, we leverage a Large Language Model (LLM) to propose biases given a set of captions. Secondly, the target generative model produces images using the same set of captions. Lastly, a Vision Question Answering model recognizes the presence and extent of the previously proposed biases. We study the behavior of Stable Diffusion 1.5, 2, and XL emphasizing new biases, never investigated before. Via quantitative experiments, we demonstrate that OpenBias agrees with current closed-set bias detection methods and human judgement.

Cognitive biases often shape human decisions. While large language models (LLMs) have been shown to reproduce well-known biases, a more critical question is whether LLMs can predict biases at the individual level and emulate the dynamics of biased human behavior when contextual factors, such as cognitive load, interact with these biases. We adapted three well-established decision scenarios into a conversational setting and conducted a human experiment (N=1100). Participants engaged with a chatbot that facilitates decision-making through simple or complex dialogues. Results revealed robust biases. To evaluate how LLMs emulate human decision-making under similar interactive conditions, we used participant demographics and dialogue transcripts to simulate these conditions with LLMs based on GPT-4 and GPT-5. The LLMs reproduced human biases with precision. We found notable differences between models in how they aligned human behavior. This has important implications for designing and evaluating adaptive, bias-aware LLM-based AI systems in interactive contexts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) drive scientific question-answering on modern search engines, yet their evaluation robustness remains underexplored. We introduce YESciEval, an open-source framework that combines fine-grained rubric-based assessment with reinforcement learning to mitigate optimism bias in LLM evaluators. We release multidisciplinary scienceQ&A datasets, including adversarial variants, with evaluation scores from multiple LLMs. Independent of proprietary models and human feedback, our approach enables scalable, cost-free evaluation. By advancing reliable LLM-as-a-judge models, this work supports AI alignment and fosters robust, transparent evaluation essential for scientific inquiry.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show the potential of using LLMs as evaluators for assessing the quality of text generations from LLMs. However, applying LLM evaluators naively to compare or judge between different systems can lead to unreliable results due to the intrinsic win rate estimation bias of LLM evaluators. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose two calibration methods, Bayesian Win Rate Sampling (BWRS) and Bayesian Dawid-Skene, both of which leverage Bayesian inference to more accurately infer the true win rate of generative language models. We empirically validate our methods on six datasets covering story generation, summarization, and instruction following tasks. We show that both our methods are effective in improving the accuracy of win rate estimation using LLMs as evaluators, offering a promising direction for reliable automatic text quality evaluation.

This paper examines the role of cognitive biases in the decision-making processes of large language models (LLMs), challenging the conventional goal of eliminating all biases. We show that certain cognitive biases when properly balanced, can enhance decision-making efficiency through rational deviations and heuristic shortcuts. By introducing heuristic moderation and an abstention option, which allows LLMs to withhold responses when uncertain, we reduce error rates, improve decision accuracy, and optimize decision rates. Using the Balance Rigor and Utility (BRU) dataset, developed through expert collaboration, our findings demonstrate that targeted inspection of cognitive biases aligns LLM decisions more closely with human reasoning, enhancing reliability and suggesting strategies for future improvements. This approach offers a novel way to leverage cognitive biases to improve the practical utility of LLMs across various applications.

Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of existing LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLM judges, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for investigating 5 types of biases for LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset with 142 samples referring to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy and conduct thousands of human and LLM evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the most cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit their weakness and conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge against perturbations, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as interfaces to information on online platforms. These agents filter, prioritize, and synthesize information retrieved from the platforms' back-end databases or via web search. In these scenarios, LLM agents govern the information users receive, by drawing users' attention to particular instances of retrieved information at the expense of others. While much prior work has focused on biases in the information LLMs themselves generate, less attention has been paid to the factors that influence what information LLMs select and present to users. We hypothesize that when information is attributed to specific sources (e.g., particular publishers, journals, or platforms), current LLMs exhibit systematic latent source preferences- that is, they prioritize information from some sources over others. Through controlled experiments on twelve LLMs from six model providers, spanning both synthetic and real-world tasks, we find that several models consistently exhibit strong and predictable source preferences. These preferences are sensitive to contextual framing, can outweigh the influence of content itself, and persist despite explicit prompting to avoid them. They also help explain phenomena such as the observed left-leaning skew in news recommendations in prior work. Our findings advocate for deeper investigation into the origins of these preferences, as well as for mechanisms that provide users with transparency and control over the biases guiding LLM-powered agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent's responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil's Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents' arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent's answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.

Finetuning on narrow domains has become an essential tool to adapt Large Language Models (LLMs) to specific tasks and to create models with known unusual properties that are useful for research. We show that narrow finetuning creates strong biases in LLM activations that can be interpreted to understand the finetuning domain. These biases can be discovered using simple tools from model diffing - the study of differences between models before and after finetuning. In particular, analyzing activation differences on the first few tokens of random text and steering by adding this difference to the model activations produces text similar to the format and general content of the finetuning data. We demonstrate that these analyses contain crucial information by creating an LLM-based interpretability agent to understand the finetuning domain. With access to the bias, the agent performs significantly better compared to baseline agents using simple prompting. Our analysis spans synthetic document finetuning for false facts, emergent misalignment, subliminal learning, and taboo word guessing game models across different architectures (Gemma, LLaMA, Qwen) and scales (1B to 32B parameters). We suspect these biases reflect overfitting and find that mixing pretraining data into the finetuning corpus largely removes them, though residual risks may remain. Our work (1) demonstrates that narrowly finetuned models have salient traces of their training objective in their activations and suggests ways to improve how they are trained, (2) warns AI safety and interpretability researchers that the common practice of using such models as a proxy for studying broader finetuning (e.g., chat-tuning) might not be realistic, and (3) highlights the need for deeper investigation into the effects of narrow finetuning and development of truly realistic case studies for model-diffing, safety and interpretability research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant promise for various applications in healthcare. However, their efficacy in the Arabic medical domain remains unexplored due to the lack of high-quality domain-specific datasets and benchmarks. This study introduces MedArabiQ, a novel benchmark dataset consisting of seven Arabic medical tasks, covering multiple specialties and including multiple choice questions, fill-in-the-blank, and patient-doctor question answering. We first constructed the dataset using past medical exams and publicly available datasets. We then introduced different modifications to evaluate various LLM capabilities, including bias mitigation. We conducted an extensive evaluation with five state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5-Sonnet, and Gemini 1.5. Our findings highlight the need for the creation of new high-quality benchmarks that span different languages to ensure fair deployment and scalability of LLMs in healthcare. By establishing this benchmark and releasing the dataset, we provide a foundation for future research aimed at evaluating and enhancing the multilingual capabilities of LLMs for the equitable use of generative AI in healthcare.

Large Language Models(LLMs) have revolutionized various applications in natural language processing (NLP) by providing unprecedented text generation, translation, and comprehension capabilities. However, their widespread deployment has brought to light significant concerns regarding biases embedded within these models. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of biases in LLMs, aiming to provide an extensive review of the types, sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies related to these biases. We systematically categorize biases into several dimensions. Our survey synthesizes current research findings and discusses the implications of biases in real-world applications. Additionally, we critically assess existing bias mitigation techniques and propose future research directions to enhance fairness and equity in LLMs. This survey serves as a foundational resource for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers concerned with addressing and understanding biases in LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can infer sensitive attributes such as gender or age from indirect cues like names and pronouns, potentially biasing recommendations. While several debiasing methods exist, they require access to the LLMs' weights, are computationally costly, and cannot be used by lay users. To address this gap, we investigate implicit biases in LLM Recommenders (LLMRecs) and explore whether prompt-based strategies can serve as a lightweight and easy-to-use debiasing approach. We contribute three bias-aware prompting strategies for LLMRecs. To our knowledge, this is the first study on prompt-based debiasing approaches in LLMRecs that focuses on group fairness for users. Our experiments with 3 LLMs, 4 prompt templates, 9 sensitive attribute values, and 2 datasets show that our proposed debiasing approach, which instructs an LLM to be fair, can improve fairness by up to 74% while retaining comparable effectiveness, but might overpromote specific demographic groups in some cases.

Automatic evaluation metrics are crucial for advancing sign language translation (SLT). Current SLT evaluation metrics, such as BLEU and ROUGE, are only text-based, and it remains unclear to what extent text-based metrics can reliably capture the quality of SLT outputs. To address this gap, we investigate the limitations of text-based SLT evaluation metrics by analyzing six metrics, including BLEU, chrF, and ROUGE, as well as BLEURT on the one hand, and large language model (LLM)-based evaluators such as G-Eval and GEMBA zero-shot direct assessment on the other hand. Specifically, we assess the consistency and robustness of these metrics under three controlled conditions: paraphrasing, hallucinations in model outputs, and variations in sentence length. Our analysis highlights the limitations of lexical overlap metrics and demonstrates that while LLM-based evaluators better capture semantic equivalence often missed by conventional metrics, they can also exhibit bias toward LLM-paraphrased translations. Moreover, although all metrics are able to detect hallucinations, BLEU tends to be overly sensitive, whereas BLEURT and LLM-based evaluators are comparatively lenient toward subtle cases. This motivates the need for multimodal evaluation frameworks that extend beyond text-based metrics to enable a more holistic assessment of SLT outputs.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

In this paper, we introduce SCALE, a collaborative framework that connects compact Specialized Translation Models (STMs) and general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) as one unified translation engine. By introducing translation from STM into the triplet in-context demonstrations, SCALE unlocks refinement and pivoting ability of LLM, thus mitigating language bias of LLM and parallel data bias of STM, enhancing LLM speciality without sacrificing generality, and facilitating continual learning without expensive LLM fine-tuning. Our comprehensive experiments show that SCALE significantly outperforms both few-shot LLMs (GPT-4) and specialized models (NLLB) in challenging low-resource settings. Moreover, in Xhosa to English translation, SCALE experiences consistent improvement by a 4 BLEURT score without tuning LLM and surpasses few-shot GPT-4 by 2.5 COMET score and 3.8 BLEURT score when equipped with a compact model consisting of merely 600M parameters. SCALE could also effectively exploit the existing language bias of LLMs by using an English-centric STM as a pivot for translation between any language pairs, outperforming few-shot GPT-4 by an average of 6 COMET points across eight translation directions. Furthermore we provide an in-depth analysis of SCALE's robustness, translation characteristics, and latency costs, providing solid foundation for future studies exploring the potential synergy between LLMs and more specialized, task-specific models.

Artificial intelligence is seen as increasingly important, and potentially profoundly so, but the fields of AI ethics and AI engineering have not fully recognized that these technologies, including large language models (LLMs), will have massive impacts on animals. We argue that this impact matters, because animals matter morally. As a first experiment in evaluating animal consideration in LLMs, we constructed a proof-of-concept Evaluation System, which assesses LLM responses and biases from multiple perspectives. This system evaluates LLM outputs by two criteria: their truthfulness, and the degree of consideration they give to the interests of animals. We tested OpenAI ChatGPT 4 and Anthropic Claude 2.1 using a set of structured queries and predefined normative perspectives. Preliminary results suggest that the outcomes of the tested models can be benchmarked regarding the consideration they give to animals, and that generated positions and biases might be addressed and mitigated with more developed and validated systems. Our research contributes one possible approach to integrating animal ethics in AI, opening pathways for future studies and practical applications in various fields, including education, public policy, and regulation, that involve or relate to animals and society. Overall, this study serves as a step towards more useful and responsible AI systems that better recognize and respect the vital interests and perspectives of all sentient beings.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to high-quality Machine-Generated Text (MGT), giving rise to countless new use cases and applications. However, easy access to LLMs is posing new challenges due to misuse. To address malicious usage, researchers have released datasets to effectively train models on MGT-related tasks. Similar strategies are used to compile these datasets, but no tool currently unifies them. In this scenario, we introduce TextMachina, a modular and extensible Python framework, designed to aid in the creation of high-quality, unbiased datasets to build robust models for MGT-related tasks such as detection, attribution, or boundary detection. It provides a user-friendly pipeline that abstracts away the inherent intricacies of building MGT datasets, such as LLM integrations, prompt templating, and bias mitigation. The quality of the datasets generated by TextMachina has been assessed in previous works, including shared tasks where more than one hundred teams trained robust MGT detectors.

Bias in LLMs can harm user experience and societal outcomes. However, current bias mitigation methods often require intensive human feedback, lack transferability to other topics or yield overconfident and random outputs. We find that involving LLMs in role-playing scenario boosts their ability to recognize and mitigate biases. Based on this, we propose Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback (RLDF), a novel approach for bias mitigation replacing human feedback in traditional RLHF. We utilize LLMs in multi-role debates to create a dataset that includes both high-bias and low-bias instances for training the reward model in reinforcement learning. Our approach comprises two modes: (1) self-reflection, where the same LLM participates in multi-role debates, and (2) teacher-student, where a more advanced LLM like GPT-3.5-turbo guides the LLM to perform this task. Experimental results across different LLMs on BBQ and our datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in bias mitigation. Our source code and datasets are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/RLDF-E344.

Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have increased the performance of different natural language understanding as well as generation tasks. Although LLMs have breached the state-of-the-art performance in various tasks, they often reflect different forms of bias present in the training data. In the light of this perceived limitation, we provide a unified evaluation of benchmarks using a set of representative small and medium-sized LLMs that cover different forms of biases starting from physical characteristics to socio-economic categories. Moreover, we propose five prompting approaches to carry out the bias detection task across different aspects of bias. Further, we formulate three research questions to gain valuable insight in detecting biases in LLMs using different approaches and evaluation metrics across benchmarks. The results indicate that each of the selected LLMs suffer from one or the other form of bias with the Phi-3.5B model being the least biased. Finally, we conclude the paper with the identification of key challenges and possible future directions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Despite significant advancements in bias mitigation techniques using data augmentation, zero-shot prompting, and model fine-tuning, biases continuously persist, including subtle biases that may elude human detection. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning and factuality in LLMs. Building on this approach, we propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs. Our work is the first to introduce and evaluate two distinct approaches within this framework for debiasing LLMs: a centralized method, where the conversation is facilitated by a single central LLM, and a decentralized method, where all models communicate directly. Our findings reveal that our multi-LLM framework significantly reduces bias in LLMs, outperforming the baseline method across several social groups.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized Recommender Systems (RS) through advanced generative user modeling. However, LLM-based RS (LLM-RS) often inadvertently perpetuates bias present in the training data, leading to severe fairness issues. Addressing these fairness problems in LLM-RS faces two significant challenges. 1) Existing debiasing methods, designed for specific bias types, lack the generality to handle diverse or emerging biases in real-world applications. 2) Debiasing methods relying on retraining are computationally infeasible given the massive parameter scale of LLMs. To overcome these challenges, we propose FUDLR (Fast Unified Debiasing for LLM-RS). The core idea is to reformulate the debiasing problem as an efficient machine unlearning task with two stages. First, FUDLR identifies bias-inducing samples to unlearn through a novel bias-agnostic mask, optimized to balance fairness improvement with accuracy preservation. Its bias-agnostic design allows adaptability to various or co-existing biases simply by incorporating different fairness metrics. Second, FUDLR performs efficient debiasing by estimating and removing the influence of identified samples on model parameters. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FUDLR effectively and efficiently improves fairness while preserving recommendation accuracy, offering a practical path toward socially responsible LLM-RS. The code and data are available at https://github.com/JinLi-i/FUDLR.

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit strong biases, e.g, against women or in favor of the number 7. We investigate whether LLMs would be able to output less biased answers when allowed to observe their prior answers to the same question in a multi-turn conversation. To understand which types of questions invite more biased answers, we test LLMs on our proposed set of questions that span 9 topics and belong to three types: (1) Subjective; (2) Random; and (3) Objective. Interestingly, LLMs are able to "de-bias" themselves in a multi-turn conversation in response to questions that seek an Random, unbiased answer. Furthermore, we propose B-score, a novel metric that is effective in detecting biases to Subjective, Random, Easy, and Hard questions. On MMLU, HLE, and CSQA, leveraging B-score substantially improves the verification accuracy of LLM answers (i.e, accepting LLM correct answers and rejecting incorrect ones) compared to using verbalized confidence scores or the frequency of single-turn answers alone. Code and data are available at: https://b-score.github.io.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown powerful performance and development prospect and are widely deployed in the real world. However, LLMs can capture social biases from unprocessed training data and propagate the biases to downstream tasks. Unfair LLM systems have undesirable social impacts and potential harms. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of related research on fairness in LLMs. First, for medium-scale LLMs, we introduce evaluation metrics and debiasing methods from the perspectives of intrinsic bias and extrinsic bias, respectively. Then, for large-scale LLMs, we introduce recent fairness research, including fairness evaluation, reasons for bias, and debiasing methods. Finally, we discuss and provide insight on the challenges and future directions for the development of fairness in LLMs.

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have witnessed a remarkable surge in prevalence, altering the landscape of natural language processing and machine learning. One key factor in improving the performance of LLMs is alignment with humans achieved with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), as for many LLMs such as GPT-4, Bard, etc. In addition, recent studies are investigating the replacement of human feedback with feedback from other LLMs named Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF). We examine the biases that come along with evaluating LLMs with other LLMs and take a closer look into verbosity bias -- a bias where LLMs sometimes prefer more verbose answers even if they have similar qualities. We see that in our problem setting, GPT-4 prefers longer answers more than humans. We also propose a metric to measure this bias.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to various NLP tasks, their inherent biases are gradually disclosed. Therefore, measuring biases in LLMs is crucial to mitigate its ethical risks. However, most existing bias evaluation datasets focus on English and North American culture, and their bias categories are not fully applicable to other cultures. The datasets grounded in the Chinese language and culture are scarce. More importantly, these datasets usually only support single evaluation tasks and cannot evaluate the bias from multiple aspects in LLMs. To address these issues, we present a Multi-task Chinese Bias Evaluation Benchmark (McBE) that includes 4,077 bias evaluation instances, covering 12 single bias categories, 82 subcategories and introducing 5 evaluation tasks, providing extensive category coverage, content diversity, and measuring comprehensiveness. Additionally, we evaluate several popular LLMs from different series and with parameter sizes. In general, all these LLMs demonstrated varying degrees of bias. We conduct an in-depth analysis of results, offering novel insights into bias in LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to inheriting and amplifying societal biases embedded within their training data, potentially reinforcing harmful stereotypes related to gender, occupation, and other sensitive categories. This issue becomes particularly problematic as biased LLMs can have far-reaching consequences, leading to unfair practices and exacerbating social inequalities across various domains, such as recruitment, online content moderation, or even the criminal justice system. Although prior research has focused on detecting bias in LLMs using specialized datasets designed to highlight intrinsic biases, there has been a notable lack of investigation into how these findings correlate with authoritative datasets, such as those from the U.S. National Bureau of Labor Statistics (NBLS). To address this gap, we conduct empirical research that evaluates LLMs in a ``bias-out-of-the-box" setting, analyzing how the generated outputs compare with the distributions found in NBLS data. Furthermore, we propose a straightforward yet effective debiasing mechanism that directly incorporates NBLS instances to mitigate bias within LLMs. Our study spans seven different LLMs, including instructable, base, and mixture-of-expert models, and reveals significant levels of bias that are often overlooked by existing bias detection techniques. Importantly, our debiasing method, which does not rely on external datasets, demonstrates a substantial reduction in bias scores, highlighting the efficacy of our approach in creating fairer and more reliable LLMs.

As LLMs are increasingly integrated into user-facing applications, addressing biases that perpetuate societal inequalities is crucial. While much work has gone into measuring or mitigating biases in these models, fewer studies have investigated their origins. Therefore, this study examines the correlation between gender-occupation bias in pre-training data and their manifestation in LLMs, focusing on the Dolma dataset and the OLMo model. Using zero-shot prompting and token co-occurrence analyses, we explore how biases in training data influence model outputs. Our findings reveal that biases present in pre-training data are amplified in model outputs. The study also examines the effects of prompt types, hyperparameters, and instruction-tuning on bias expression, finding instruction-tuning partially alleviating representational bias while still maintaining overall stereotypical gender associations, whereas hyperparameters and prompting variation have a lesser effect on bias expression. Our research traces bias throughout the LLM development pipeline and underscores the importance of mitigating bias at the pretraining stage.

Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their effectiveness in a wide range of applications, they have also been observed to perpetuate unwanted biases present in the training data, potentially leading to harm for marginalized communities. In this paper, we mitigate bias by leveraging small biased and anti-biased expert models to obtain a debiasing signal that will be added to the LLM output at decoding-time. This approach combines resource efficiency with interpretability and can be optimized for mitigating specific types of bias, depending on the target use case. Experiments on mitigating gender, race, and religion biases show a reduction in bias on several local and global bias metrics while preserving language model performance.

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently showcased remarkable ability to generate fitting responses to natural language instructions. However, an open research question concerns the inherent biases of trained models and their responses. For instance, if the data used to tune an LLM is dominantly written by persons with a specific political bias, we might expect generated answers to share this bias. Current research work seeks to de-bias such models, or suppress potentially biased answers. With this demonstration, we take a different view on biases in instruction-tuning: Rather than aiming to suppress them, we aim to make them explicit and transparent. To this end, we present OpinionGPT, a web demo in which users can ask questions and select all biases they wish to investigate. The demo will answer this question using a model fine-tuned on text representing each of the selected biases, allowing side-by-side comparison. To train the underlying model, we identified 11 different biases (political, geographic, gender, age) and derived an instruction-tuning corpus in which each answer was written by members of one of these demographics. This paper presents OpinionGPT, illustrates how we trained the bias-aware model and showcases the web application (available at https://opiniongpt.informatik.hu-berlin.de).

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been observed to exhibit bias in numerous ways, potentially creating or worsening outcomes for specific groups identified by protected attributes such as sex, race, sexual orientation, or age. To help address this gap, we introduce LangFair, an open-source Python package that aims to equip LLM practitioners with the tools to evaluate bias and fairness risks relevant to their specific use cases. The package offers functionality to easily generate evaluation datasets, comprised of LLM responses to use-case-specific prompts, and subsequently calculate applicable metrics for the practitioner's use case. To guide in metric selection, LangFair offers an actionable decision framework.

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit systematic preferences for certain answer choices when responding to multiple-choice questions-a behavior known as selection bias. This bias reduces the accuracy and reliability of LLM outputs, limiting their usefulness in decision-critical applications. While prior work has focused on adjusting model inputs or outputs to mitigate this issue, our work takes a fundamentally different approach by identifying and removing the internal sources of bias. We introduce two methods: Bias Node Pruning (BNP), which prunes parameters that contribute to selection bias, and Auxiliary Option Injection (AOI), which introduces an additional answer choice to reduce bias in both white-box and black-box settings. To address the shortcomings of existing evaluation metrics, we propose Choice Kullback-Leibler Divergence (CKLD), a new metric that captures distributional imbalances in model predictions. Experiments on three LLMs across multiple datasets demonstrate that our methods consistently improve answer accuracy while reducing selection bias, providing a robust solution for both open- and closed-source models.

Watermarking for large language models (LLMs) embeds a statistical signal during generation to enable detection of model-produced text. While watermarking has proven effective in benign settings, its robustness under adversarial evasion remains contested. To advance a rigorous understanding and evaluation of such vulnerabilities, we propose the Bias-Inversion Rewriting Attack (BIRA), which is theoretically motivated and model-agnostic. BIRA weakens the watermark signal by suppressing the logits of likely watermarked tokens during LLM-based rewriting, without any knowledge of the underlying watermarking scheme. Across recent watermarking methods, BIRA achieves over 99\% evasion while preserving the semantic content of the original text. Beyond demonstrating an attack, our results reveal a systematic vulnerability, emphasizing the need for stress testing and robust defenses.

With the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence, careful evaluation of inherent biases needs to be conducted to form the basis for alleviating the effects these predispositions can have on users. Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly used by many as a primary source of information for various topics. LLMs frequently make factual errors, fabricate data (hallucinations), or present biases, exposing users to misinformation and influencing opinions. Educating users on their risks is key to responsible use, as bias, unlike hallucinations, cannot be caught through data verification. We quantify the political bias of popular LLMs in the context of the recent vote of the German Bundestag using the score produced by the Wahl-O-Mat. This metric measures the alignment between an individual's political views and the positions of German political parties. We compare the models' alignment scores to identify factors influencing their political preferences. Doing so, we discover a bias toward left-leaning parties, most dominant in larger LLMs. Also, we find that the language we use to communicate with the models affects their political views. Additionally, we analyze the influence of a model's origin and release date and compare the results to the outcome of the recent vote of the Bundestag. Our results imply that LLMs are prone to exhibiting political bias. Large corporations with the necessary means to develop LLMs, thus, knowingly or unknowingly, have a responsibility to contain these biases, as they can influence each voter's decision-making process and inform public opinion in general and at scale.

There is increasing interest in the application large language models (LLMs) to the medical field, in part because of their impressive performance on medical exam questions. While promising, exam questions do not reflect the complexity of real patient-doctor interactions. In reality, physicians' decisions are shaped by many complex factors, such as patient compliance, personal experience, ethical beliefs, and cognitive bias. Taking a step toward understanding this, our hypothesis posits that when LLMs are confronted with clinical questions containing cognitive biases, they will yield significantly less accurate responses compared to the same questions presented without such biases. In this study, we developed BiasMedQA, a benchmark for evaluating cognitive biases in LLMs applied to medical tasks. Using BiasMedQA we evaluated six LLMs, namely GPT-4, Mixtral-8x70B, GPT-3.5, PaLM-2, Llama 2 70B-chat, and the medically specialized PMC Llama 13B. We tested these models on 1,273 questions from the US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1, 2, and 3, modified to replicate common clinically-relevant cognitive biases. Our analysis revealed varying effects for biases on these LLMs, with GPT-4 standing out for its resilience to bias, in contrast to Llama 2 70B-chat and PMC Llama 13B, which were disproportionately affected by cognitive bias. Our findings highlight the critical need for bias mitigation in the development of medical LLMs, pointing towards safer and more reliable applications in healthcare.

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

Large language models trained on natural language exhibit pronounced anisotropy: a small number of directions concentrate disproportionate energy, while the remaining dimensions form a broad semantic tail. In low-bit training regimes, this geometry becomes numerically unstable. Because blockwise quantization scales are determined by extreme elementwise magnitudes, dominant directions stretch the dynamic range, compressing long-tail semantic variation into narrow numerical bins. We show that this instability is primarily driven by a coherent rank-one mean bias, which constitutes the dominant component of spectral anisotropy in LLM representations. This mean component emerges systematically across layers and training stages and accounts for the majority of extreme activation magnitudes, making it the principal driver of dynamic-range inflation under low precision. Crucially, because the dominant instability is rank-one, it can be eliminated through a simple source-level mean-subtraction operation. This bias-centric conditioning recovers most of the stability benefits of SVD-based spectral methods while requiring only reduction operations and standard quantization kernels. Empirical results on FP4 (W4A4G4) training show that mean removal substantially narrows the loss gap to BF16 and restores downstream performance, providing a hardware-efficient path to stable low-bit LLM training.

Speech-aware LLMs (SLLMs) have recently achieved state-of-the-art ASR performance; however, they still fail to accurately transcribe bias words that appear rarely or never in the training data. Contextual biasing mechanisms are commonly implemented by introducing a predefined bias word list into the model via a text prompt or additional module. For further improvement, predefined bias words can be paired with their phoneme representations as pronunciation cues. Typically, phoneme sequences are generated through a G2P system that covers the target languages and domains of the bias words. Therefore, when a compatible G2P system is unavailable, phoneme-assisted contextual biasing becomes difficult to perform. Moreover, manually adding accurate phoneme sequences requires advanced phonetic knowledge. In this paper, we explore contextual biasing in SLLM based on acoustic cues associated with a set of common words whose pronunciations are partially similar to those of the target bias words. We assume ASR applications in which end users do not require special knowledge of phonetics or utilize G2P tools for inference. For enhanced robustness, we also introduce bias word positional prediction implemented in a multi-output learning fashion. Our method reduces bias word recognition errors by 16.3% compared to baseline systems, including on out-of-domain data.

Large language models (LLMs) have become a standard for multilingual evaluation, yet they exhibit a severe systematic translationese bias. In this paper, translationese bias is characterized as LLMs systematically favoring machine-translated text over human-authored references, particularly in low-resource languages. We attribute this bias to spurious correlations with (i) latent manifold alignment with English and (ii) cross-lingual predictability. To mitigate this bias, we propose DIBJudge, a robust fine-tuning framework that learns a minimally sufficient, judgment-critical representation via variational information compression, while explicitly isolating spurious factors into the dedicated bias branch. Furthermore, we incorporate a cross-covariance penalty that explicitly suppresses statistical dependence between robust and bias representations, thereby encouraging effective disentanglement. Extensive evaluations on multilingual reward modeling benchmarks and a dedicated translationese bias evaluation suite demonstrate that the proposed DIBJudge consistently outperforms strong baselines and substantially mitigates translationese bias.

Detecting biases in structured data is a complex and time-consuming task. Existing automated techniques are limited in diversity of data types and heavily reliant on human case-by-case handling, resulting in a lack of generalizability. Currently, large language model (LLM)-based agents have made significant progress in data science, but their ability to detect data biases is still insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we introduce the first end-to-end, multi-agent synergy framework, BIASINSPECTOR, designed for automatic bias detection in structured data based on specific user requirements. It first develops a multi-stage plan to analyze user-specified bias detection tasks and then implements it with a diverse and well-suited set of tools. It delivers detailed results that include explanations and visualizations. To address the lack of a standardized framework for evaluating the capability of LLM agents to detect biases in data, we further propose a comprehensive benchmark that includes multiple evaluation metrics and a large set of test cases. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework achieves exceptional overall performance in structured data bias detection, setting a new milestone for fairer data applications.

Utilizing state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), automatic code generation models play a pivotal role in enhancing the productivity and efficiency of software development coding procedures. As the adoption of LLMs becomes more widespread in software coding ecosystems, a pressing issue has emerged: does the generated code contain social biases, such as those related to age, gender, and race? This issue concerns the integrity, fairness, and ethical foundation of software applications that depend on the code generated by these models, yet is under-explored in the literature. This paper presents a novel bias assessment framework that is specifically designed for code generation tasks. Based on this framework, we conduct an extensive evaluation on the bias of nine state-of-the-art LLM-based code generation models. Our findings reveal that first, 31.45\% to 79.93\% code functions generated by our evaluated code generation models are biased, and 9.68\% to 37.37\% code functions' functionality are affected by the bias, which means biases not only exist in code generation models but in some cases, directly affect the functionality of the generated code, posing risks of unintended and possibly harmful software behaviors. To mitigate bias from code generation models, we propose three mitigation strategies, which can decrease the biased code ratio to a very low level of 0.4\% to 4.57\%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in persona-driven applications such as education, customer service, and social platforms, where models are prompted to adopt specific personas when interacting with users. While persona conditioning can improve user experience and engagement, it also raises concerns about how personality cues may interact with gender biases and stereotypes. In this work, we present a controlled study of persona-conditioned story generation in English and Hindi, where each story portrays a working professional in India producing context-specific artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, reports, letters) under systematically varied persona gender, occupational role, and personality traits from the HEXACO and Dark Triad frameworks. Across 23,400 generated stories from six state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that personality traits are significantly associated with both the magnitude and direction of gender bias. In particular, Dark Triad personality traits are consistently associated with higher gender-stereotypical representations compared to socially desirable HEXACO traits, though these associations vary across models and languages. Our findings demonstrate that gender bias in LLMs is not static but context-dependent. This suggests that persona-conditioned systems used in real-world applications may introduce uneven representational harms, reinforcing gender stereotypes in generated educational, professional, or social content.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, driving advancements in machine translation, summarization, and conversational agents. However, their increasing integration into critical societal domains has raised concerns about embedded biases, which can perpetuate stereotypes and compromise fairness. These biases stem from various sources, including historical inequalities in training data, linguistic imbalances, and adversarial manipulation. Despite mitigation efforts, recent studies indicate that LLMs remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks designed to elicit biased responses. This work proposes a scalable benchmarking framework to evaluate LLM robustness against adversarial bias elicitation. Our methodology involves (i) systematically probing models with a multi-task approach targeting biases across various sociocultural dimensions, (ii) quantifying robustness through safety scores using an LLM-as-a-Judge approach for automated assessment of model responses, and (iii) employing jailbreak techniques to investigate vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms. Our analysis examines prevalent biases in both small and large state-of-the-art models and their impact on model safety. Additionally, we assess the safety of domain-specific models fine-tuned for critical fields, such as medicine. Finally, we release a curated dataset of bias-related prompts, CLEAR-Bias, to facilitate systematic vulnerability benchmarking. Our findings reveal critical trade-offs between model size and safety, aiding the development of fairer and more robust future language models.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, they are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. However, LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. Given that LLMs are being used to gain insights into various societal aspects, it is essential to mitigate these biases. To that end, our study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases. We begin by creating a dataset of scenarios where implicit gender biases might arise, and subsequently develop a metric to assess the presence of biases. Our empirical analysis reveals that LLMs generate outputs characterized by strong implicit bias associations (>= 50\% of the time). Furthermore, these biases tend to escalate following multi-agent interactions. To mitigate them, we propose two strategies: self-reflection with in-context examples (ICE); and supervised fine-tuning. Our research demonstrates that both methods effectively mitigate implicit biases, with the ensemble of fine-tuning and self-reflection proving to be the most successful.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to evaluate the quality of text, a field commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior works mainly focus on point-wise and pair-wise evaluation paradigms. Rubric-based evaluation, where LLMs select a score from multiple rubrics, has received less analysis. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multi-choice setting and therefore has position bias: LLMs prefer score options appearing at specific positions in the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate consistent position bias. To mitigate this bias, we propose a balanced permutation strategy that evenly distributes each score option across positions. We show that aggregating scores across balanced permutations not only reveals latent position bias, but also improves correlation between the LLM-as-a-Judge and human. Our results suggest that rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge is not inherently point-wise and that simple permutation-based calibration can substantially improve its reliability.

This paper investigates algorithmic bias in language-based models for automated depression detection, focusing on socio-demographic disparities related to gender and race/ethnicity. Models trained using deep neural networks (DNN) based embeddings are compared to few-shot learning approaches with large language models (LLMs), evaluating both performance and fairness on clinical interview transcripts from the Distress Analysis Interview Corpus/Wizard-of-Oz (DAIC-WOZ). To mitigate bias, fairness-aware loss functions are applied to DNN-based models, while in-context learning with varied prompt framing and shot counts is explored for LLMs. Results indicate that LLMs outperform DNN-based models in depression classification, particularly for underrepresented groups such as Hispanic participants. LLMs also exhibit reduced gender bias compared to DNN-based embeddings, though racial disparities persist. Among fairness-aware techniques for mitigating bias in DNN-based embeddings, the worst-group loss, which is designed to minimize loss for the worst-performing demographic group, achieves a better balance between performance and fairness. In contrast, the fairness-regularized loss minimizes loss across all groups but performs less effectively. In LLMs, guided prompting with ethical framing helps mitigate gender bias in the 1-shot setting. However, increasing the number of shots does not lead to further reductions in disparities. For race/ethnicity, neither prompting strategy nor increasing N in N-shot learning effectively reduces disparities.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise to become autonomous agents, they often explore suboptimally in sequential decision-making. Recent work has sought to enhance this capability via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) or reinforcement learning (RL), improving regret on the classic multi-armed bandit task. However, it remains unclear how these learning methods shape exploration strategies and how well they generalize. We investigate both paradigms by training LLMs with SFT on expert trajectories and RL with a range of tailored reward signals including a strategic, regret-shaped reward to reduce variance, and an algorithmic reward that enables oracle imitation. The resulting agents outperform pre-trained models and achieve performance comparable to Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) and Thompson Sampling, with robust generalization to 6x longer horizons and across bandit families. Behavioral analysis reveals that gains often stem from more sophisticated but greedier exploitation: RL/SFT agents are more prone to early catastrophic failure than pre-trained models, prematurely abandoning exploration. Furthermore, agents trained to imitate UCB learn to outperform their teacher by adopting more exploitative variants. Our findings clarify when each training paradigm is preferable and advocate tailored reward design and evaluation beyond average regret to promote robust exploratory behavior.

High annotation costs from hiring or crowdsourcing complicate the creation of large, high-quality datasets needed for training reliable text classifiers. Recent research suggests using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the annotation process, reducing these costs while maintaining data quality. LLMs have shown promising results in annotating downstream tasks like hate speech detection and political framing. Building on the success in these areas, this study investigates whether LLMs are viable for annotating the complex task of media bias detection and whether a downstream media bias classifier can be trained on such data. We create annolexical, the first large-scale dataset for media bias classification with over 48000 synthetically annotated examples. Our classifier, fine-tuned on this dataset, surpasses all of the annotator LLMs by 5-9 percent in Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and performs close to or outperforms the model trained on human-labeled data when evaluated on two media bias benchmark datasets (BABE and BASIL). This study demonstrates how our approach significantly reduces the cost of dataset creation in the media bias domain and, by extension, the development of classifiers, while our subsequent behavioral stress-testing reveals some of its current limitations and trade-offs.

Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit bias in a variety of ways. Such biases can create or exacerbate unfair outcomes for certain groups within a protected attribute, including, but not limited to sex, race, sexual orientation, or age. In this paper, we propose a decision framework that allows practitioners to determine which bias and fairness metrics to use for a specific LLM use case. To establish the framework, we define bias and fairness risks for LLMs, map those risks to a taxonomy of LLM use cases, and then define various metrics to assess each type of risk. Instead of focusing solely on the model itself, we account for both prompt-specific- and model-specific-risk by defining evaluations at the level of an LLM use case, characterized by a model and a population of prompts. Furthermore, because all of the evaluation metrics are calculated solely using the LLM output, our proposed framework is highly practical and easily actionable for practitioners. For streamlined implementation, all evaluation metrics included in the framework are offered in this paper's companion Python toolkit, LangFair. Finally, our experiments demonstrate substantial variation in bias and fairness across use cases, underscoring the importance of use-case-level assessments.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, concerns regarding the potential negative societal impacts of LLM-generated content have also arisen. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. However, existing bias evaluation efforts often focus on only a particular type of bias and employ inconsistent evaluation metrics, leading to difficulties in comparison across different datasets and LLMs. To address these limitations, we collect a variety of datasets designed for the bias evaluation of LLMs, and further propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks. The curation of CEB is based on our newly proposed compositional taxonomy, which characterizes each dataset from three dimensions: bias types, social groups, and tasks. By combining the three dimensions, we develop a comprehensive evaluation strategy for the bias in LLMs. Our experiments demonstrate that the levels of bias vary across these dimensions, thereby providing guidance for the development of specific bias mitigation methods.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into applications ranging from review summarization to medical diagnosis support, where they affect human decisions. Even though LLMs perform well in many tasks, they may also inherit societal or cognitive biases, which can inadvertently transfer to humans. We investigate when and how LLMs expose users to biased content and quantify its severity. Specifically, we assess three LLM families in summarization and news fact-checking tasks, evaluating how much LLMs stay consistent with their context and/or hallucinate. Our findings show that LLMs expose users to content that changes the sentiment of the context in 21.86% of the cases, hallucinates on post-knowledge-cutoff data questions in 57.33% of the cases, and primacy bias in 5.94% of the cases. We evaluate 18 distinct mitigation methods across three LLM families and find that targeted interventions can be effective. Given the prevalent use of LLMs in high-stakes domains, such as healthcare or legal analysis, our results highlight the need for robust technical safeguards and for developing user-centered interventions that address LLM limitations.

While preliminary findings indicate that multilingual LLMs exhibit reduced bias compared to monolingual ones, a comprehensive understanding of the effect of multilingual training on bias mitigation, is lacking. This study addresses this gap by systematically training six LLMs of identical size (2.6B parameters) and architecture: five monolingual models (English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish) and one multilingual model trained on an equal distribution of data across these languages, all using publicly available data. To ensure robust evaluation, standard bias benchmarks were automatically translated into the five target languages and verified for both translation quality and bias preservation by human annotators. Our results consistently demonstrate that multilingual training effectively mitigates bias. Moreover, we observe that multilingual models achieve not only lower bias but also superior prediction accuracy when compared to monolingual models with the same amount of training data, model architecture, and size.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical decision-making. However, their potential to exhibit bias poses significant risks to clinical equity. Currently, there is a lack of benchmarks that systematically evaluate such clinical bias in LLMs. While in downstream tasks, some biases of LLMs can be avoided such as by instructing the model to answer "I'm not sure...", the internal bias hidden within the model still lacks deep studies. We introduce CLIMB (shorthand for A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models), a pioneering comprehensive benchmark to evaluate both intrinsic (within LLMs) and extrinsic (on downstream tasks) bias in LLMs for clinical decision tasks. Notably, for intrinsic bias, we introduce a novel metric, AssocMAD, to assess the disparities of LLMs across multiple demographic groups. Additionally, we leverage counterfactual intervention to evaluate extrinsic bias in a task of clinical diagnosis prediction. Our experiments across popular and medically adapted LLMs, particularly from the Mistral and LLaMA families, unveil prevalent behaviors with both intrinsic and extrinsic bias. This work underscores the critical need to mitigate clinical bias and sets a new standard for future evaluations of LLMs' clinical bias.

Existing studies on bias mitigation methods for large language models (LLMs) use diverse baselines and metrics to evaluate debiasing performance, leading to inconsistent comparisons among them. Moreover, their evaluations are mostly based on the comparison between LLMs' probabilities of biased and unbiased contexts, which ignores the gap between such evaluations and real-world use cases where users interact with LLMs by reading model responses and expect fair and safe outputs rather than LLMs' probabilities. To enable consistent evaluation across debiasing methods and bridge this gap, we introduce BiasFreeBench, an empirical benchmark that comprehensively compares eight mainstream bias mitigation techniques (covering four prompting-based and four training-based methods) on two test scenarios (multi-choice QA and open-ended multi-turn QA) by reorganizing existing datasets into a unified query-response setting. We further introduce a response-level metric, Bias-Free Score, to measure the extent to which LLM responses are fair, safe, and anti-stereotypical. Debiasing performances are systematically compared and analyzed across key dimensions: the prompting vs. training paradigm, model size, and generalization of different training strategies to unseen bias types. We will publicly release our benchmark, aiming to establish a unified testbed for bias mitigation research.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in lieu of humans. While scalable, their judgments are noisy due to imperfect specificity and sensitivity of LLMs, leading to biased accuracy estimates. Although bias-correction methods exist, they are underutilized in LLM research and typically assume exact knowledge of the model's specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, in general we only have estimates of these values and it is not well known how to properly construct confidence intervals using only estimates. This work presents a simple plug-in framework that corrects such bias and constructs confidence intervals reflecting uncertainty from both test and calibration dataset, enabling practical and statistically sound LLM-based evaluation. Additionally, to reduce uncertainty in the accuracy estimate, we introduce an adaptive algorithm that efficiently allocates calibration sample sizes.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, demonstrating remarkable computational power and linguistic capabilities. However, these models are inherently prone to various biases stemming from their training data. These include selection, linguistic, and confirmation biases, along with common stereotypes related to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, and age. This study explores the presence of these biases within the responses given by the most recent LLMs, analyzing the impact on their fairness and reliability. We also investigate how known prompt engineering techniques can be exploited to effectively reveal hidden biases of LLMs, testing their adversarial robustness against jailbreak prompts specially crafted for bias elicitation. Extensive experiments are conducted using the most widespread LLMs at different scales, confirming that LLMs can still be manipulated to produce biased or inappropriate responses, despite their advanced capabilities and sophisticated alignment processes. Our findings underscore the importance of enhancing mitigation techniques to address these safety issues, toward a more sustainable and inclusive artificial intelligence.

Self-evaluation using large language models (LLMs) has proven valuable not only in benchmarking but also methods like reward modeling, constitutional AI, and self-refinement. But new biases are introduced due to the same LLM acting as both the evaluator and the evaluatee. One such bias is self-preference, where an LLM evaluator scores its own outputs higher than others' while human annotators consider them of equal quality. But do LLMs actually recognize their own outputs when they give those texts higher scores, or is it just a coincidence? In this paper, we investigate if self-recognition capability contributes to self-preference. We discover that, out of the box, LLMs such as GPT-4 and Llama 2 have non-trivial accuracy at distinguishing themselves from other LLMs and humans. By fine-tuning LLMs, we discover a linear correlation between self-recognition capability and the strength of self-preference bias; using controlled experiments, we show that the causal explanation resists straightforward confounders. We discuss how self-recognition can interfere with unbiased evaluations and AI safety more generally.