Do LLMs exhibit demographic parity in responses to queries about Human Rights?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19463v1
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:19:35 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs exhibit demographic parity in responses to queries about Human Rights?
• Authors: Rafiya Javed, Jackie Kay, David Yanni, Abdullah Zaini, Anushe Sheikh, Maribeth Rauh, Iason Gabriel, Laura Weidinger,
• Abstract summary: Hedging and non-affirmation are behaviours that express ambiguity or a lack of clear endorsement on specific statements.<n>We design a novel prompt set on human rights in the context of different national or social identities.<n>We develop metrics to capture hedging and non-affirmation behaviours.<n>We find that all models exhibit some demographic disparities in how they attribute human rights between different identity groups.
• Score: 4.186018120368565
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This research describes a novel approach to evaluating hedging behaviour in large language models (LLMs), specifically in the context of human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Hedging and non-affirmation are behaviours that express ambiguity or a lack of clear endorsement on specific statements. These behaviours are undesirable in certain contexts, such as queries about whether different groups are entitled to specific human rights; since all people are entitled to human rights. Here, we present the first systematic attempt to measure these behaviours in the context of human rights, with a particular focus on between-group comparisons. To this end, we design a novel prompt set on human rights in the context of different national or social identities. We develop metrics to capture hedging and non-affirmation behaviours and then measure whether LLMs exhibit demographic parity when responding to the queries. We present results on three leading LLMs and find that all models exhibit some demographic disparities in how they attribute human rights between different identity groups. Futhermore, there is high correlation between different models in terms of how disparity is distributed amongst identities, with identities that have high disparity in one model also facing high disparity in both the other models. While baseline rates of hedging and non-affirmation differ, these disparities are consistent across queries that vary in ambiguity and they are robust across variations of the precise query wording. Our findings highlight the need for work to explicitly align LLMs to human rights principles, and to ensure that LLMs endorse the human rights of all groups equally.

Related papers

• When Do Language Models Endorse Limitations on Human Rights Principles? [82.84306700922664]
  We evaluate how Large Language Models (LLMs) navigate trade-offs involving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)<n>Our analysis of eleven major LLMs reveals systematic biases where models accept limiting Economic, Social, and Cultural rights more often than Political and Civil rights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T16:01:53Z)
• Do Large Language Models Understand Morality Across Cultures? [0.5356944479760104]
  This study investigates the extent to which large language models capture cross-cultural differences and similarities in moral perspectives.<n>Our results reveal that current LLMs often fail to reproduce the full spectrum of cross-cultural moral variation.<n>These findings highlight a pressing need for more robust approaches to mitigate biases and improve cultural representativeness in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T20:25:36Z)
• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Fact-or-Fair: A Checklist for Behavioral Testing of AI Models on Fairness-Related Queries [85.909363478929]
  In this study, we focus on 19 real-world statistics collected from authoritative sources. We develop a checklist comprising objective and subjective queries to analyze behavior of large language models. We propose metrics to assess factuality and fairness, and formally prove the inherent trade-off between these two aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Algorithmic Fidelity of Large Language Models in Generating Synthetic German Public Opinions: A Case Study [23.458234676060716]
  This study investigates the algorithmic fidelity of large language models (LLMs)<n>We prompt different LLMs to generate synthetic public opinions reflective of German subpopulations by incorporating demographic features into the persona prompts.<n>Our results show that Llama performs better than other LLMs at representing subpopulations, particularly when there is lower opinion diversity within those groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:46:32Z)
• LLMs as mirrors of societal moral standards: reflection of cultural divergence and agreement across ethical topics [0.5852077003870417]
  Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly pivotal in various domains due to the recent advancements in their performance capabilities.<n>This study investigates whether LLMs accurately reflect cross-cultural variations and similarities in moral perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-01T20:39:42Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Uncovering Factor Level Preferences to Improve Human-Model Alignment [58.50191593880829]
  We introduce PROFILE, a framework that uncovers and quantifies the influence of specific factors driving preferences. ProFILE's factor level analysis explains the 'why' behind human-model alignment and misalignment. We demonstrate how leveraging factor level insights, including addressing misaligned factors, can improve alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T15:02:34Z)
• Investigating Context Effects in Similarity Judgements in Large Language Models [6.421776078858197]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionised the capability of AI models in comprehending and generating natural language text. We report an ongoing investigation on alignment of LLMs with human judgements affected by order bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T10:26:02Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.<n>We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.<n>We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• A Theory of LLM Sampling: Part Descriptive and Part Prescriptive [53.08398658452411]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making. We show that this sampling behavior resembles that of human decision-making. We show that this deviation of a sample from the statistical norm towards a prescriptive component consistently appears in concepts across diverse real-world domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• Sociodemographic Prompting is Not Yet an Effective Approach for Simulating Subjective Judgments with LLMs [13.744746481528711]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to simulate human responses across diverse contexts. We evaluate nine popular LLMs on their ability to understand demographic differences in two subjective judgment tasks: politeness and offensiveness. We find that in zero-shot settings, most models' predictions for both tasks align more closely with labels from White participants than those from Asian or Black participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:24Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)

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.