DIF: A Framework for Benchmarking and Verifying Implicit Bias in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10013v1
• Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 06:53:37 GMT
• Title: DIF: A Framework for Benchmarking and Verifying Implicit Bias in LLMs
• Authors: Lake Yin, Fan Huang,
• Abstract summary: 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)
• Score: 1.89915151018241
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) have risen in prominence over the past few years, there has been concern over the potential biases in LLMs inherited from the training data. Previous studies have examined how LLMs exhibit implicit bias, such as when response generation changes when different social contexts are introduced. We argue that this implicit bias is not only an ethical, but also a technical issue, as it reveals an inability of LLMs to accommodate extraneous information. However, unlike other measures of LLM intelligence, there are no standard methods to benchmark this specific subset of LLM bias. To bridge this gap, we developed a method for calculating an easily interpretable benchmark, DIF (Demographic Implicit Fairness), by evaluating preexisting LLM logic and math problem datasets with sociodemographic personas. We demonstrate that this method can statistically validate the presence of implicit bias in LLM behavior and find an inverse trend between question answering accuracy and implicit bias, supporting our argument.

Related papers

• Implicit Bias in LLMs: A Survey [2.07180164747172]
  This paper provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature on implicit bias in Large language models.<n>We begin by introducing key concepts, theories and methods related to implicit bias in psychology.<n>We categorize detection methods into three primary approaches: word association, task-oriented text generation and decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T16:49:37Z)
• Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge [69.96778498636071]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:13:03Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• Unboxing Occupational Bias: Grounded Debiasing of LLMs with U.S. Labor Data [9.90951705988724]
  Large Language Models (LLM) are prone to inheriting and amplifying societal biases. LLM bias can have far-reaching consequences, leading to unfair practices and exacerbating social inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T23:54:26Z)
• Promoting Equality in Large Language Models: Identifying and Mitigating the Implicit Bias based on Bayesian Theory [29.201402717025335]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on extensive text corpora, which inevitably include biased information. We have formally defined the implicit bias problem and developed an innovative framework for bias removal based on Bayesian theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T07:40:12Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback for Bias Mitigation in LLMs [6.090496490133132]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T22:18:50Z)
• 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)
• Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
  Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation. We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z)
• A Theory of LLM Sampling: Part Descriptive and Part Prescriptive [53.08398658452411]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making.<n>We show that this sampling behavior resembles that of human decision-making.<n>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)
• The Gaps between Pre-train and Downstream Settings in Bias Evaluation and Debiasing [74.7319697510621]
  In-Context Learning (ICL) induces smaller changes to PLMs compared to FT-based debiasing methods. ICL-based debiasing methods show a higher correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic bias scores compared to FT-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T17:15:08Z)
• 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)
• Gender bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models [0.6882042556551611]
  This paper investigates Large Language Models' behavior with respect to gender stereotypes. We use a simple paradigm to test the presence of gender bias, building on but differing from WinoBias. Our contributions in this paper are as follows: (a) LLMs are 3-6 times more likely to choose an occupation that stereotypically aligns with a person's gender; (b) these choices align with people's perceptions better than with the ground truth as reflected in official job statistics; (d) LLMs ignore crucial ambiguities in sentence structure 95% of the time in our study items, but when explicitly prompted, they recognize
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T22:32:05Z)

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.