The Biased Samaritan: LLM biases in Perceived Kindness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11361v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 23:33:42 GMT
• Title: The Biased Samaritan: LLM biases in Perceived Kindness
• Authors: Jack H Fagan, Ruhaan Juyaal, Amy Yue-Ming Yu, Siya Pun,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in many fields.<n>This paper provides a novel method for evaluating the demographic biases of various generative AI models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in many fields, understanding and mitigating LLM biases is an ongoing issue. This paper provides a novel method for evaluating the demographic biases of various generative AI models. By prompting models to assess a moral patient's willingness to intervene constructively, we aim to quantitatively evaluate different LLMs' biases towards various genders, races, and ages. Our work differs from existing work by aiming to determine the baseline demographic identities for various commercial models and the relationship between the baseline and other demographics. We strive to understand if these biases are positive, neutral, or negative, and the strength of these biases. This paper can contribute to the objective assessment of bias in Large Language Models and give the user or developer the power to account for these biases in LLM output or in training future LLMs. Our analysis suggested two key findings: that models view the baseline demographic as a white middle-aged or young adult male; however, a general trend across models suggested that non-baseline demographics are more willing to help than the baseline. These methodologies allowed us to distinguish these two biases that are often tangled together.

Related papers

• Surface Fairness, Deep Bias: A Comparative Study of Bias in Language Models [49.41113560646115]
  We investigate various proxy measures of bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that evaluating models with pre-prompted personae on a multi-subject benchmark (MMLU) leads to negligible and mostly random differences in scores.<n>With the recent trend for LLM assistant memory and personalization, these problems open up from a different angle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T08:47:40Z)
• Veracity Bias and Beyond: Uncovering LLMs' Hidden Beliefs in Problem-Solving Reasoning [4.452208564152158]
  Despite human value-aligned models' alignment against demographic stereotypes, they have been shown to exhibit biases under various social contexts.<n>We show two forms of such veracity biases: Attribution Bias, where models disproportionately attribute correct solutions to certain demographic groups, and Evaluation Bias, where models' assessment of identical solutions varies based on perceived demographic authorship.<n>Our findings indicate that demographic bias extends beyond surface-level stereotypes and social context provocations, raising concerns about LLMs' deployment in educational and evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T02:13:48Z)
• How far can bias go? -- Tracing bias from pretraining data to alignment [54.51310112013655]
  This study examines the correlation between gender-occupation bias in pre-training data and their manifestation in LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that biases present in pre-training data are amplified in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T16:20:25Z)
• LLMs are Biased Teachers: Evaluating LLM Bias in Personalized Education [6.354025374447606]
  We evaluate large language models (LLMs) for bias in the personalized educational setting.<n>We reveal significant biases in how models generate and select educational content tailored to different demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T20:27:44Z)
• 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)
• White Men Lead, Black Women Help? Benchmarking and Mitigating Language Agency Social Biases in LLMs [58.27353205269664]
  Social biases can manifest in language agency in Large Language Model (LLM)-generated content.<n>We introduce the Language Agency Bias Evaluation benchmark, which comprehensively evaluates biases in LLMs.<n>Using LABE, we unveil language agency social biases in 3 recent LLMs: ChatGPT, Llama3, and Mistral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T12:27:54Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Geographically Biased [47.88767211956144]
  We study what Large Language Models (LLMs) know about the world we live in through the lens of geography. We show various problematic geographic biases, which we define as systemic errors in geospatial predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T02:32:09Z)
• 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)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Investigating Subtler Biases in LLMs: Ageism, Beauty, Institutional, and Nationality Bias in Generative Models [0.0]
  This paper investigates bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the "what is beautiful is good" bias found in people in experimental psychology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-16T07:07:04Z)
• The Unequal Opportunities of Large Language Models: Revealing Demographic Bias through Job Recommendations [5.898806397015801]
  We propose a simple method for analyzing and comparing demographic bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by measuring intersectional biases within ChatGPT and LLaMA. We identify distinct biases in both models toward various demographic identities, such as both models consistently suggesting low-paying jobs for Mexican workers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-03T21:12:54Z)

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.