BiasCause: Evaluate Socially Biased Causal Reasoning of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07997v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 20:00:14 GMT
• Title: BiasCause: Evaluate Socially Biased Causal Reasoning of Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) generate content including social bias against certain sensitive groups.<n>This paper goes one step further to evaluate the causal reasoning process of LLMs when they answer questions eliciting social biases.
• Score: 8.368810576899556
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) already play significant roles in society, research has shown that LLMs still generate content including social bias against certain sensitive groups. While existing benchmarks have effectively identified social biases in LLMs, a critical gap remains in our understanding of the underlying reasoning that leads to these biased outputs. This paper goes one step further to evaluate the causal reasoning process of LLMs when they answer questions eliciting social biases. We first propose a novel conceptual framework to classify the causal reasoning produced by LLMs. Next, we use LLMs to synthesize $1788$ questions covering $8$ sensitive attributes and manually validate them. The questions can test different kinds of causal reasoning by letting LLMs disclose their reasoning process with causal graphs. We then test 4 state-of-the-art LLMs. All models answer the majority of questions with biased causal reasoning, resulting in a total of $4135$ biased causal graphs. Meanwhile, we discover $3$ strategies for LLMs to avoid biased causal reasoning by analyzing the "bias-free" cases. Finally, we reveal that LLMs are also prone to "mistaken-biased" causal reasoning, where they first confuse correlation with causality to infer specific sensitive group names and then incorporate biased causal reasoning.

Related papers

• Evaluating Second-Order Bias of LLMs Through Epistemic Entitlement [31.07429782962401]
  We call this second-order bias: social bias in an LLM's judgment about social bias.<n>We develop metrics to measure how biased LLM judges are in inferring demographics for acceptability without sufficient support.<n>Our work points to the need for LLM bias evaluation in judgment tasks and broadly, for more theoretically grounded approaches to bias evaluation in NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T04:28:56Z)
• Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy [62.927670321859495]
  LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment.<n>We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs.<n>Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:15:43Z)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• Are LLMs Biased Like Humans? Causal Reasoning as a Function of Prior Knowledge, Irrelevant Information, and Reasoning Budget [0.9558392439655014]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in domains where causal reasoning matters.<n>We benchmark 20+ LLMs against a matched human baseline on 11 causal judgment tasks formalized by a collider structure.<n>We find that most LLMs exhibit more rule-like reasoning strategies than humans who seem to account for unmentioned latent factors in their probability judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T01:43:09Z)
• CoBia: Constructed Conversations Can Trigger Otherwise Concealed Societal Biases in LLMs [10.340166874690578]
  We introduce CoBia, a suite of lightweight adversarial attacks that allow us to refine the scope of conditions under which Large language models depart from normative or ethical behavior.<n>CoBia creates a constructed conversation where the model utters a biased claim about a social group.<n>We then evaluate whether the model can recover from the fabricated bias claim and reject biased follow-up questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T21:09:01Z)
• Unveiling Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models: Reality or Mirage? [62.17959154852391]
  Causal reasoning capability is critical in advancing large language models toward strong artificial intelligence.<n>We show that large language models (LLMs) are only capable of performing shallow (level-1) causal reasoning.<n>We propose G2-Reasoner, a method that incorporates general knowledge and goal-oriented prompts into LLMs' causal reasoning processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-26T13:11:01Z)
• DIF: A Framework for Benchmarking and Verifying Implicit Bias in LLMs [1.89915151018241]
  We argue that implicit bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) is not only an ethical, but also a technical issue.<n>We developed a method for calculating an easily interpretable benchmark, DIF (Demographic Implicit Fairness)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T06:53:37Z)
• Evaluating Social Biases in LLM Reasoning [19.824838766883534]
  This paper evaluated the 8B and 32B variants of DeepSeek-R1 against their instruction tuned counterparts on the BBQ dataset.<n>To the best of our knowledge, this empirical study is the first to assess bias issues in LLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T10:16:07Z)
• Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying [0.3659498819753633]
  State-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. This paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:51:30Z)
• Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives [51.19592551510628]
  We investigate the causal reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) through the representative problem of inferring causal relationships from narratives.<n>We find that even state-of-the-art language models rely on unreliable shortcuts, both in terms of the narrative presentation and their parametric knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:48:58Z)
• Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [13.880151307013321]
  We introduce a novel metric to measure the self-preference bias in large language models (LLMs) Our results show GPT-4 exhibits a significant degree of self-preference bias. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T07:42:18Z)
• Not All LLM Reasoners Are Created Equal [58.236453890457476]
  We study the depth of grade-school math problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. We evaluate their performance on pairs of existing math word problems together.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T17:01:10Z)
• Social Bias Evaluation for Large Language Models Requires Prompt Variations [38.91306092184724]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit considerable social biases. This paper investigates the sensitivity of LLMs when changing prompt variations. We show that LLMs have tradeoffs between performance and social bias caused by the prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T14:12:04Z)
• A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners [58.15511660018742]
  This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities. We develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:22:53Z)
• LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [52.03659714625452]
  Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really "reason" over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T21:08:49Z)
• Prompting Fairness: Integrating Causality to Debias Large Language Models [19.76215433424235]
  Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to generating biased and discriminatory responses.<n>We propose a causality-guided debiasing framework to tackle social biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T17:46:28Z)
• CLadder: Assessing Causal Reasoning in Language Models [82.8719238178569]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can coherently reason about causality. We propose a new NLP task, causal inference in natural language, inspired by the "causal inference engine" postulated by Judea Pearl et al.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T15:12:12Z)
• 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)

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.