MALIBU Benchmark: Multi-Agent LLM Implicit Bias Uncovered

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01019v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 19:16:40 GMT
• Title: MALIBU Benchmark: Multi-Agent LLM Implicit Bias Uncovered
• Authors: Imran Mirza, Cole Huang, Ishwara Vasista, Rohan Patil, Asli Akalin, Sean O'Brien, Kevin Zhu,
• Abstract summary: We present MALIBU, a novel benchmark developed to assess the degree to which multi-agent systems implicitly reinforce social biases and stereotypes.<n>Our study quantifies biases in LLM-generated outputs, revealing that bias mitigation may favor marginalized personas over true neutrality.
• Score: 2.8692611791027893
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multi-agent systems, which consist of multiple AI models interacting within a shared environment, are increasingly used for persona-based interactions. However, if not carefully designed, these systems can reinforce implicit biases in large language models (LLMs), raising concerns about fairness and equitable representation. We present MALIBU, a novel benchmark developed to assess the degree to which LLM-based multi-agent systems implicitly reinforce social biases and stereotypes. MALIBU evaluates bias in LLM-based multi-agent systems through scenario-based assessments. AI models complete tasks within predefined contexts, and their responses undergo evaluation by an LLM-based multi-agent judging system in two phases. In the first phase, judges score responses labeled with specific demographic personas (e.g., gender, race, religion) across four metrics. In the second phase, judges compare paired responses assigned to different personas, scoring them and selecting the superior response. Our study quantifies biases in LLM-generated outputs, revealing that bias mitigation may favor marginalized personas over true neutrality, emphasizing the need for nuanced detection, balanced fairness strategies, and transparent evaluation benchmarks in multi-agent systems.

Related papers

• Judging with Many Minds: Do More Perspectives Mean Less Prejudice? [37.06831535578792]
  We conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias.<n>We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T03:56:41Z)
• 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)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations.<n>Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation.<n>We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• Ethical AI on the Waitlist: Group Fairness Evaluation of LLM-Aided Organ Allocation [19.66750942418172]
  Using organ allocation as a case study, we introduce two tasks: (1) Choose-One and (2) Rank-All.<n>In Rank-All, LLMs rank all candidates for a kidney, reflecting real-world allocation processes.<n>Since traditional fairness metrics do not account for ranking, we propose a novel application of Borda scoring to capture biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T04:36:25Z)
• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia.<n>In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models.<n>This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• 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)
• Sample-Efficient Human Evaluation of Large Language Models via Maximum Discrepancy Competition [38.822535662755314]
  We propose a sample-efficient human evaluation method for large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method automatically and adaptively selects a compact set of input instructions that maximize semantic discrepancy between pairs of LLM responses.<n>Human evaluators then perform three-alternative forced choices on these paired responses, which are aggregated into a global ranking using Elo rating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T01:26:24Z)
• Large Language Model (LLM) Bias Index -- LLMBI [0.0]
  The Large Language Model Bias Index (LLMBI) is a pioneering approach designed to quantify and address biases inherent in large language models (LLMs) We formulated LLMBI using a composite scoring system incorporating multiple dimensions of bias, including but not limited to age, gender, and racial biases. Our empirical analysis, conducted using responses from OpenAI's API, employs advanced sentiment analysis as a representative method for bias detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T15:38:13Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.