Do LLMs have a Gender (Entropy) Bias?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20343v1
• Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 23:06:41 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs have a Gender (Entropy) Bias?
• Authors: Sonal Prabhune, Balaji Padmanabhan, Kaushik Dutta,
• Abstract summary: We define and study entropy bias, which we define as a discrepancy in the amount of information generated by an LLM in response to real questions users have asked.<n>Our analyses suggest that there is no significant bias in LLM responses for men and women at a category level.<n>We suggest a simple debiasing approach that iteratively merges the responses for the two genders to produce a final result.
• Score: 3.2225437367979763
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We investigate the existence and persistence of a specific type of gender bias in some of the popular LLMs and contribute a new benchmark dataset, RealWorldQuestioning (released on HuggingFace ), developed from real-world questions across four key domains in business and health contexts: education, jobs, personal financial management, and general health. We define and study entropy bias, which we define as a discrepancy in the amount of information generated by an LLM in response to real questions users have asked. We tested this using four different LLMs and evaluated the generated responses both qualitatively and quantitatively by using ChatGPT-4o (as "LLM-as-judge"). Our analyses (metric-based comparisons and "LLM-as-judge" evaluation) suggest that there is no significant bias in LLM responses for men and women at a category level. However, at a finer granularity (the individual question level), there are substantial differences in LLM responses for men and women in the majority of cases, which "cancel" each other out often due to some responses being better for males and vice versa. This is still a concern since typical users of these tools often ask a specific question (only) as opposed to several varied ones in each of these common yet important areas of life. We suggest a simple debiasing approach that iteratively merges the responses for the two genders to produce a final result. Our approach demonstrates that a simple, prompt-based debiasing strategy can effectively debias LLM outputs, thus producing responses with higher information content than both gendered variants in 78% of the cases, and consistently achieving a balanced integration in the remaining cases.

Related papers

• Assessing Gender Bias in LLMs: Comparing LLM Outputs with Human Perceptions and Official Statistics [0.0]
  This study investigates gender bias in large language models (LLMs) We compare their gender perception to that of human respondents, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, and a 50% no-bias benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T22:43:18Z)
• Gender Bias in LLM-generated Interview Responses [1.6124402884077915]
  This study evaluates three LLMs to conduct a multifaceted audit of LLM-generated interview responses across models, question types, and jobs.<n>Our findings reveal that gender bias is consistent, and closely aligned with gender stereotypes and the dominance of jobs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T05:08:08Z)
• How Can We Diagnose and Treat Bias in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision-Making? [2.7476176772825904]
  This research investigates the evaluation and mitigation of bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) We introduce a novel Counterfactual Patient Variations (CPV) dataset derived from the JAMA Clinical Challenge. Using this dataset, we built a framework for bias evaluation, employing both Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) and corresponding explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T23:14:10Z)
• Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z)
• 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)
• GenderBias-\emph{VL}: Benchmarking Gender Bias in Vision Language Models via Counterfactual Probing [72.0343083866144]
  This paper introduces the GenderBias-emphVL benchmark to evaluate occupation-related gender bias in Large Vision-Language Models. Using our benchmark, we extensively evaluate 15 commonly used open-source LVLMs and state-of-the-art commercial APIs. Our findings reveal widespread gender biases in existing LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T05:55:15Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Disclosure and Mitigation of Gender Bias in LLMs [64.79319733514266]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate biased responses. We propose an indirect probing framework based on conditional generation. We explore three distinct strategies to disclose explicit and implicit gender bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T04:48:55Z)
• 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)
• Probing Explicit and Implicit Gender Bias through LLM Conditional Text Generation [64.79319733514266]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate biased and toxic responses. We propose a conditional text generation mechanism without the need for predefined gender phrases and stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T05:31:46Z)
• 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.