Fine-Grained Bias Detection in LLM: Enhancing detection mechanisms for nuanced biases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.06054v1
• Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 04:43:01 GMT
• Title: Fine-Grained Bias Detection in LLM: Enhancing detection mechanisms for nuanced biases
• Authors: Suvendu Mohanty,
• Abstract summary: This study presents a detection framework to identify nuanced biases in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>The approach integrates contextual analysis, interpretability via attention mechanisms, and counterfactual data augmentation to capture hidden biases.<n>Results show improvements in detecting subtle biases compared to conventional methods.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence, particularly in Large Language Models (LLMs), have transformed natural language processing by improving generative capabilities. However, detecting biases embedded within these models remains a challenge. Subtle biases can propagate misinformation, influence decision-making, and reinforce stereotypes, raising ethical concerns. This study presents a detection framework to identify nuanced biases in LLMs. The approach integrates contextual analysis, interpretability via attention mechanisms, and counterfactual data augmentation to capture hidden biases across linguistic contexts. The methodology employs contrastive prompts and synthetic datasets to analyze model behaviour across cultural, ideological, and demographic scenarios. Quantitative analysis using benchmark datasets and qualitative assessments through expert reviews validate the effectiveness of the framework. Results show improvements in detecting subtle biases compared to conventional methods, which often fail to highlight disparities in model responses to race, gender, and socio-political contexts. The framework also identifies biases arising from imbalances in training data and model architectures. Continuous user feedback ensures adaptability and refinement. This research underscores the importance of proactive bias mitigation strategies and calls for collaboration between policymakers, AI developers, and regulators. The proposed detection mechanisms enhance model transparency and support responsible LLM deployment in sensitive applications such as education, legal systems, and healthcare. Future work will focus on real-time bias monitoring and cross-linguistic generalization to improve fairness and inclusivity in AI-driven communication tools.

Related papers

• 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)
• Unmasking Digital Falsehoods: A Comparative Analysis of LLM-Based Misinformation Detection Strategies [0.0]
  This paper conducts a comparison of approaches to detecting misinformation between text-based, multimodal, and agentic approaches.<n>We evaluate the effectiveness of fine-tuned models, zero-shot learning, and systematic fact-checking mechanisms in detecting misinformation across different topic domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T04:31:42Z)
• Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection [44.05134959039957]
  We investigate how sociolinguistic attributes-gender, CEFR proficiency, academic field, and language environment-impact state-of-the-art AI text detectors.<n>Our results reveal significant biases: CEFR proficiency and language environment consistently affected detector accuracy, while gender and academic field showed detector-dependent effects.<n>These findings highlight the crucial need for socially aware AI text detection to avoid unfairly penalizing specific demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T07:49:31Z)
• Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation [4.606140332500086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T23:54:53Z)
• Uncovering Biases with Reflective Large Language Models [2.5200794639628032]
  Biases and errors in human-labeled data present significant challenges for machine learning. We present the Reflective LLM Dialogue Framework RLDF, which leverages structured adversarial dialogues to uncover diverse perspectives. Experiments show RLDF successfully identifies potential biases in public content while exposing limitations in human-labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T04:48:32Z)
• 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)
• Towards detecting unanticipated bias in Large Language Models [1.4589372436314496]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited fairness issues similar to those in previous machine learning systems. This research focuses on analyzing and quantifying these biases in training data and their impact on the decisions of these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T11:25:20Z)
• 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)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• On the Robustness of Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis: Rethinking Model, Data, and Training [109.9218185711916]
  Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) aims at automatically inferring the specific sentiment polarities toward certain aspects of products or services behind social media texts or reviews. We propose to enhance the ABSA robustness by systematically rethinking the bottlenecks from all possible angles, including model, data, and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T11:07:43Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)

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.