LLMs on Trial: Evaluating Judicial Fairness for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.10852v2
• Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2025 01:45:01 GMT
• Title: LLMs on Trial: Evaluating Judicial Fairness for Large Language Models
• Authors: Yiran Hu, Zongyue Xue, Haitao Li, Siyuan Zheng, Qingjing Chen, Shaochun Wang, Xihan Zhang, Ning Zheng, Yun Liu, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, Charles L. A. Clarke, Weixing Shen,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes fields where their decisions impact rights and equity.<n>LLMs' judicial fairness and implications for social justice remain underexplored.<n>We construct a comprehensive framework to measure LLM fairness, leading to a selection of 65 labels and 161 corresponding values.<n>Applying this framework to the judicial system, we compile an extensive dataset, JudiFair, comprising 177,100 unique case facts.
• Score: 18.895994052898754
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes fields where their decisions impact rights and equity. However, LLMs' judicial fairness and implications for social justice remain underexplored. When LLMs act as judges, the ability to fairly resolve judicial issues is a prerequisite to ensure their trustworthiness. Based on theories of judicial fairness, we construct a comprehensive framework to measure LLM fairness, leading to a selection of 65 labels and 161 corresponding values. Applying this framework to the judicial system, we compile an extensive dataset, JudiFair, comprising 177,100 unique case facts. To achieve robust statistical inference, we develop three evaluation metrics, inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy, and introduce a method to assess the overall fairness of multiple LLMs across various labels. Through experiments with 16 LLMs, we uncover pervasive inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy across models, underscoring severe LLM judicial unfairness. Particularly, LLMs display notably more pronounced biases on demographic labels, with slightly less bias on substance labels compared to procedure ones. Interestingly, increased inconsistency correlates with reduced biases, but more accurate predictions exacerbate biases. While we find that adjusting the temperature parameter can influence LLM fairness, model size, release date, and country of origin do not exhibit significant effects on judicial fairness. Accordingly, we introduce a publicly available toolkit containing all datasets and code, designed to support future research in evaluating and improving LLM fairness.

Related papers

• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• Is Your Model Fairly Certain? Uncertainty-Aware Fairness Evaluation for LLMs [7.197702136906138]
  We propose an uncertainty-aware fairness metric, UCerF, to enable a fine-grained evaluation of model fairness.<n> observing data size, diversity, and clarity issues in current datasets, we introduce a new gender-occupation fairness evaluation dataset.<n>We establish a benchmark, using our metric and dataset, and apply it to evaluate the behavior of ten open-source AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T20:45:18Z)
• Don't Judge Code by Its Cover: Exploring Biases in LLM Judges for Code Evaluation [14.521056434373213]
  Using large language models as evaluators has expanded to code evaluation tasks.<n>This raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations?<n>We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T04:49:33Z)
• Assessing Judging Bias in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study [99.86300466350013]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities.<n>We present a benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T07:14:27Z)
• The Other Side of the Coin: Exploring Fairness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [73.16564415490113]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant document from external knowledge sources.<n>We propose two approaches, FairFT and FairFilter, to mitigate the fairness issues introduced by RAG for small-scale LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T10:17:10Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.<n>Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)
• 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)
• Unboxing Occupational Bias: Grounded Debiasing of LLMs with U.S. Labor Data [9.90951705988724]
  Large Language Models (LLM) are prone to inheriting and amplifying societal biases. LLM bias can have far-reaching consequences, leading to unfair practices and exacerbating social inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T23:54:26Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Fairness in Large Language Models in Three Hours [2.443957114877221]
  This tutorial provides a systematic overview of recent advances in the literature concerning large language models. The concept of fairness in LLMs is then explored, summarizing the strategies for evaluating bias and the algorithms designed to promote fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T03:44:14Z)
• Fairness in Large Language Models: A Taxonomic Survey [2.669847575321326]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains.<n>Despite their promising performance in numerous real-world applications, most of these algorithms lack fairness considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T22:22:53Z)
• A Survey on Fairness in Large Language Models [28.05516809190299]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown powerful performance and development prospects. LLMs can capture social biases from unprocessed training data and propagate the biases to downstream tasks. Unfair LLM systems have undesirable social impacts and potential harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T03:30:22Z)

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.