Red-Teaming for Inducing Societal Bias in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04756v2
• Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 14:29:49 GMT
• Title: Red-Teaming for Inducing Societal Bias in Large Language Models
• Authors: Chu Fei Luo, Ahmad Ghawanmeh, Bharat Bhimshetty, Kashyap Murali, Murli Jadhav, Xiaodan Zhu, Faiza Khan Khattak,
• Abstract summary: We propose two bias-specific red-teaming methods to evaluate how standard safety measures for harmful content affect bias.<n>We use these attacking strategies to induce biased responses from several open- and closed-source language models.<n>We find our method increases bias in all models, even those trained with safety guardrails.
• Score: 16.289297654694607
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Ensuring the safe deployment of AI systems is critical in industry settings where biased outputs can lead to significant operational, reputational, and regulatory risks. Thorough evaluation before deployment is essential to prevent these hazards. Red-teaming addresses this need by employing adversarial attacks to develop guardrails that detect and reject biased or harmful queries, enabling models to be retrained or steered away from harmful outputs. However, most red-teaming efforts focus on harmful or unethical instructions rather than addressing social bias, leaving this critical area under-explored despite its significant real-world impact, especially in customer-facing systems. We propose two bias-specific red-teaming methods, Emotional Bias Probe (EBP) and BiasKG, to evaluate how standard safety measures for harmful content affect bias. For BiasKG, we refactor natural language stereotypes into a knowledge graph. We use these attacking strategies to induce biased responses from several open- and closed-source language models. Unlike prior work, these methods specifically target social bias. We find our method increases bias in all models, even those trained with safety guardrails. Our work emphasizes uncovering societal bias in LLMs through rigorous evaluation, and recommends measures ensure AI safety in high-stakes industry deployments.

Related papers

• Making Bias Non-Predictive: Training Robust LLM Judges via Reinforcement Learning [91.8584139564909]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as automated judges, yet they remain susceptible to cognitive biases.<n>We propose Epistemic Independence Training (EIT), a reinforcement learning framework grounded in a key principle.<n>EIT operationalizes this through a balanced conflict strategy where bias signals are equally likely to support correct and incorrect answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T01:43:48Z)
• No Free Lunch in Language Model Bias Mitigation? Targeted Bias Reduction Can Exacerbate Unmitigated LLM Biases [6.184434080778806]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) inherit societal biases from their training data, potentially leading to harmful or unfair outputs.<n>We study four bias mitigation techniques applied across ten models from seven model families, and we explore racial, religious, profession- and gender-related biases.<n>Our results consistently show that while targeted mitigation can sometimes reduce bias in the intended dimension, it frequently leads to unintended and often negative consequences in others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-23T22:21:18Z)
• BiasGym: Fantastic LLM Biases and How to Find (and Remove) Them [38.80876158025777]
  BiasGym is a framework for reliably injecting, analyzing, and mitigating conceptual associations within Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>BiasGym consists of two components: BiasInject, which injects specific biases into the model via token-based fine-tuning while keeping the model frozen, and BiasScope, which leverages these injected signals to identify and steer the components responsible for biased behavior.<n>Our method enables consistent bias elicitation for mechanistic analysis, supports targeted debiasing without degrading performance on downstream tasks, and generalizes to biases unseen during token-based fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T11:23:44Z)
• Cannot See the Forest for the Trees: Invoking Heuristics and Biases to Elicit Irrational Choices of LLMs [83.11815479874447]
  We propose a novel jailbreak attack framework, inspired by cognitive decomposition and biases in human cognition.<n>We employ cognitive decomposition to reduce the complexity of malicious prompts and relevance bias to reorganize prompts.<n>We also introduce a ranking-based harmfulness evaluation metric that surpasses the traditional binary success-or-failure paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-03T05:28:11Z)
• Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, driving advancements in machine translation, summarization, and conversational agents. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:00:59Z)
• Detecting and Mitigating Bias in LLMs through Knowledge Graph-Augmented Training [2.8402080392117757]
  This work investigates Knowledge Graph-Augmented Training (KGAT) as a novel method to mitigate bias in large language models. Public datasets for bias assessment include Gender Shades, Bias in Bios, and FairFace. We also performed targeted mitigation strategies to correct biased associations, leading to a significant drop in biased output and improved bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T00:27:50Z)
• Rethinking Prompt-based Debiasing in Large Language Models [40.90578215191079]
  Investigating bias in large language models (LLMs) is crucial for developing trustworthy AI.<n>While prompt-based through prompt engineering is common, its effectiveness relies on the assumption that models inherently understand biases.<n>Our study systematically analyzed this assumption using the BBQ and StereoSet benchmarks on both open-source models as well as commercial GPT model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T10:06:03Z)
• Towards Resource Efficient and Interpretable Bias Mitigation in Large Language Models [1.787433808079955]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been observed to perpetuate unwanted biases in training data.<n>In this paper, we mitigate bias by leveraging small biased and anti-biased expert models to obtain a debiasing signal.<n> Experiments on mitigating gender, race, and religion biases show a reduction in bias on several local and global bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:56:08Z)
• Investigating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models: A Large-Scale Study of Over 50 LLMs [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being adopted across a wide range of tasks. Recent research indicates that LLMs can harbor implicit biases even when they pass explicit bias evaluations. This study highlights that newer or larger language models do not automatically exhibit reduced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T03:43:18Z)
• Co-occurrence is not Factual Association in Language Models [19.708303468664088]
  We show that language models are biased to learn word co-occurrence statistics instead of true factual associations. We propose two strategies to improve the learning of factual associations in language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-21T08:13:16Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Bias-Free? Jailbreak Prompts for Assessing Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, demonstrating remarkable computational power and linguistic capabilities. These models are inherently prone to various biases stemming from their training data. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T12:30:19Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• ALERT: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models' Safety through Red Teaming [64.86326523181553]
  ALERT is a large-scale benchmark to assess safety based on a novel fine-grained risk taxonomy. It aims to identify vulnerabilities, inform improvements, and enhance the overall safety of the language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T15:01:47Z)
• Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes [73.12947922129261]
  We leverage the zero-shot capabilities of large language models to reduce stereotyping. We show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T01:40:11Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Exploiting Large Language Models (LLMs) through Deception Techniques and Persuasion Principles [2.134057414078079]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) gain widespread use, ensuring their security and robustness is critical. This paper presents a novel study focusing on exploitation of such large language models against deceptive interactions. Our results demonstrate a significant finding in that these large language models are susceptible to deception and social engineering attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T23:57:44Z)
• On the application of Large Language Models for language teaching and assessment technology [18.735612275207853]
  We look at the potential for incorporating large language models in AI-driven language teaching and assessment systems. We find that larger language models offer improvements over previous models in text generation. For automated grading and grammatical error correction, tasks whose progress is checked on well-known benchmarks, early investigations indicate that large language models on their own do not improve on state-of-the-art results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T11:12:56Z)
• A Survey of Large Language Models [81.06947636926638]
  Language modeling has been widely studied for language understanding and generation in the past two decades. Recently, pre-trained language models (PLMs) have been proposed by pre-training Transformer models over large-scale corpora. To discriminate the difference in parameter scale, the research community has coined the term large language models (LLM) for the PLMs of significant size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-31T17:28:46Z)
• Language Generation Models Can Cause Harm: So What Can We Do About It? An Actionable Survey [50.58063811745676]
  This work provides a survey of practical methods for addressing potential threats and societal harms from language generation models. We draw on several prior works' of language model risks to present a structured overview of strategies for detecting and ameliorating different kinds of risks/harms of language generators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T10:43:39Z)
• Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Models [86.02610674750345]
  Adversarial GLUE (AdvGLUE) is a new multi-task benchmark to explore and evaluate the vulnerabilities of modern large-scale language models under various types of adversarial attacks. We apply 14 adversarial attack methods to GLUE tasks to construct AdvGLUE, which is further validated by humans for reliable annotations. All the language models and robust training methods we tested perform poorly on AdvGLUE, with scores lagging far behind the benign accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-04T12:59:55Z)
• Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models [107.82654101403264]
  Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) can be potentially dangerous in manifesting undesirable representational biases. We propose steps towards mitigating social biases during text generation. Our empirical results and human evaluation demonstrate effectiveness in mitigating bias while retaining crucial contextual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T17:52:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.