Quantifying Fairness in LLMs Beyond Tokens: A Semantic and Statistical Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19028v2
• Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 01:21:47 GMT
• Title: Quantifying Fairness in LLMs Beyond Tokens: A Semantic and Statistical Perspective
• Authors: Weijie Xu, Yiwen Wang, Chi Xue, Xiangkun Hu, Xi Fang, Guimin Dong, Chandan K. Reddy,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate responses with inherent biases, undermining their reliability in real-world applications.<n>Existing evaluation methods often overlook biases in long-form responses and the intrinsic variability of LLM outputs.<n>We propose FiSco, a novel statistical framework to evaluate group-level fairness in LLMs by detecting subtle semantic differences in long-form responses across demographic groups.
• Score: 13.739343897204568
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate responses with inherent biases, undermining their reliability in real-world applications. Existing evaluation methods often overlook biases in long-form responses and the intrinsic variability of LLM outputs. To address these challenges, we propose FiSCo(Fine-grained Semantic Computation), a novel statistical framework to evaluate group-level fairness in LLMs by detecting subtle semantic differences in long-form responses across demographic groups. Unlike prior work focusing on sentiment or token-level comparisons, FiSCo goes beyond surface-level analysis by operating at the claim level, leveraging entailment checks to assess the consistency of meaning across responses. We decompose model outputs into semantically distinct claims and apply statistical hypothesis testing to compare inter- and intra-group similarities, enabling robust detection of subtle biases. We formalize a new group counterfactual fairness definition and validate FiSCo on both synthetic and human-annotated datasets spanning gender, race, and age. Experiments show that FiSco more reliably identifies nuanced biases while reducing the impact of stochastic LLM variability, outperforming various evaluation metrics.

Related papers

• When Meaning Stays the Same, but Models Drift: Evaluating Quality of Service under Token-Level Behavioral Instability in LLMs [4.265831047857601]
  We investigate how large language models respond to prompts that differ only in their token-level realization but preserve the same semantic intent.<n>We propose Prompt-Based Semantic Shift (PBSS), a diagnostic framework for measuring behavioral drift in LLMs under semantically equivalent prompt rewordings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T18:26:32Z)
• Statistical Hypothesis Testing for Auditing Robustness in Language Models [49.1574468325115]
  We introduce distribution-based perturbation analysis, a framework that reformulates perturbation analysis as a frequentist hypothesis testing problem.<n>We construct empirical null and alternative output distributions within a low-dimensional semantic similarity space via Monte Carlo sampling.<n>We show how we can quantify response changes, measure true/false positive rates, and evaluate alignment with reference models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T17:11:07Z)
• Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs [29.112649816695203]
  Relative Bias is a method designed to assess how an LLM's behavior deviates from other LLMs within a specified target domain.<n>We introduce two complementary methodologies: (1) Embedding Transformation analysis, which captures relative bias patterns through sentence representations over the embedding space, and (2) LLM-as-a-Judge, which employs a language model to evaluate outputs comparatively.<n>Applying our framework to several case studies on bias and alignment scenarios following by statistical tests for validation, we find strong alignment between the two scoring methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T01:59:54Z)
• Metamorphic Testing for Fairness Evaluation in Large Language Models: Identifying Intersectional Bias in LLaMA and GPT [2.380039717474099]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides in Natural Language Processing but remain vulnerable to fairness-related issues.<n>This paper introduces a metamorphic testing approach to systematically identify fairness bugs in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T21:04:14Z)
• FACT-AUDIT: An Adaptive Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic Fact-Checking Evaluation of Large Language Models [79.41859481668618]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies.<n>Existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics.<n>We introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T07:44:22Z)
• Estimating Commonsense Plausibility through Semantic Shifts [66.06254418551737]
  We propose ComPaSS, a novel discriminative framework that quantifies commonsense plausibility by measuring semantic shifts.<n> Evaluations on two types of fine-grained commonsense plausibility estimation tasks show that ComPaSS consistently outperforms baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T06:31:06Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• 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)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)
• A comprehensive comparative evaluation and analysis of Distributional Semantic Models [61.41800660636555]
  We perform a comprehensive evaluation of type distributional vectors, either produced by static DSMs or obtained by averaging the contextualized vectors generated by BERT. The results show that the alleged superiority of predict based models is more apparent than real, and surely not ubiquitous. We borrow from cognitive neuroscience the methodology of Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to inspect the semantic spaces generated by distributional models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T15:18:06Z)

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.