DECASTE: Unveiling Caste Stereotypes in Large Language Models through Multi-Dimensional Bias Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14971v2
• Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:42:04 GMT
• Title: DECASTE: Unveiling Caste Stereotypes in Large Language Models through Multi-Dimensional Bias Analysis
• Authors: Prashanth Vijayaraghavan, Soroush Vosoughi, Lamogha Chiazor, Raya Horesh, Rogerio Abreu de Paula, Ehsan Degan, Vandana Mukherjee,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP)<n>LLMs have been shown to reflect and perpetuate harmful societal biases, including those based on ethnicity, gender, and religion.<n>We propose DECASTE, a novel framework designed to detect and assess both implicit and explicit caste biases in LLMs.
• Score: 20.36241144630387
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) and expanded their applications across diverse domains. However, despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs have been shown to reflect and perpetuate harmful societal biases, including those based on ethnicity, gender, and religion. A critical and underexplored issue is the reinforcement of caste-based biases, particularly towards India's marginalized caste groups such as Dalits and Shudras. In this paper, we address this gap by proposing DECASTE, a novel, multi-dimensional framework designed to detect and assess both implicit and explicit caste biases in LLMs. Our approach evaluates caste fairness across four dimensions: socio-cultural, economic, educational, and political, using a range of customized prompting strategies. By benchmarking several state-of-the-art LLMs, we reveal that these models systematically reinforce caste biases, with significant disparities observed in the treatment of oppressed versus dominant caste groups. For example, bias scores are notably elevated when comparing Dalits and Shudras with dominant caste groups, reflecting societal prejudices that persist in model outputs. These results expose the subtle yet pervasive caste biases in LLMs and emphasize the need for more comprehensive and inclusive bias evaluation methodologies that assess the potential risks of deploying such models in real-world contexts.

Related papers

• FairI Tales: Evaluation of Fairness in Indian Contexts with a Focus on Bias and Stereotypes [23.71105683137539]
  Existing studies on fairness are largely Western-focused, making them inadequate for culturally diverse countries such as India.<n>We introduce INDIC-BIAS, a comprehensive India-centric benchmark designed to evaluate fairness of LLMs across 85 socio identity groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T06:31:06Z)
• Actions Speak Louder than Words: Agent Decisions Reveal Implicit Biases in Language Models [10.565316815513235]
  Large language models (LLMs) may still exhibit implicit biases when simulating human behavior.<n>We show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant sociodemographic disparities in nearly all simulations.<n>When comparing our findings to real-world disparities reported in empirical studies, we find that the biases we uncovered are directionally aligned but markedly amplified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T05:21:31Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [91.86718720024825]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias.<n>Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning.<n>We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• 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)
• GenderCARE: A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing and Reducing Gender Bias in Large Language Models [73.23743278545321]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in natural language generation, but have also been observed to magnify societal biases.<n>GenderCARE is a comprehensive framework that encompasses innovative Criteria, bias Assessment, Reduction techniques, and Evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T15:35:46Z)
• Social Debiasing for Fair Multi-modal LLMs [55.8071045346024]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have advanced significantly, offering powerful vision-language understanding capabilities. However, these models often inherit severe social biases from their training datasets, leading to unfair predictions based on attributes like race and gender. This paper addresses the issue of social biases in MLLMs by i) Introducing a comprehensive Counterfactual dataset with Multiple Social Concepts (CMSC) and ii) Proposing an Anti-Stereotype Debiasing strategy (ASD)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-13T02:08:32Z)
• Understanding Intrinsic Socioeconomic Biases in Large Language Models [4.276697874428501]
  We introduce a novel dataset of one million English sentences to quantify socioeconomic biases. Our findings reveal pervasive socioeconomic biases in both established models like GPT-2 and state-of-the-art models like Llama 2 and Falcon.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T23:54:44Z)
• 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)
• Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models [38.180696489079985]
  This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. We show that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T16:35:59Z)
• 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)
• Indian-BhED: A Dataset for Measuring India-Centric Biases in Large Language Models [18.201326983938014]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can encode societal biases, exposing their users to representational harms. We quantify stereotypical bias in popular LLMs according to an Indian-centric frame through Indian-BhED, a first of its kind dataset. We find that the majority of LLMs tested have a strong propensity to output stereotypes in the Indian context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T17:38:41Z)
• 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)
• 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.