Who Gets Cited? Gender- and Majority-Bias in LLM-Driven Reference Selection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.02740v1
• Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2025 13:27:32 GMT
• Title: Who Gets Cited? Gender- and Majority-Bias in LLM-Driven Reference Selection
• Authors: Jiangen He,
• Abstract summary: This study systematically investigates gender bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our results reveal two forms of bias: a persistent preference for male-authored references and a majority-group bias that favors whichever gender is more prevalent in the candidate pool.<n>Our findings indicate that LLMs can reinforce or exacerbate existing gender imbalances in scholarly recognition.
• Score: 0.16317061277456998
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted as research assistants, particularly for literature review and reference recommendation, yet little is known about whether they introduce demographic bias into citation workflows. This study systematically investigates gender bias in LLM-driven reference selection using controlled experiments with pseudonymous author names. We evaluate several LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, and Claude Haiku) by varying gender composition within candidate reference pools and analyzing selection patterns across fields. Our results reveal two forms of bias: a persistent preference for male-authored references and a majority-group bias that favors whichever gender is more prevalent in the candidate pool. These biases are amplified in larger candidate pools and only modestly attenuated by prompt-based mitigation strategies. Field-level analysis indicates that bias magnitude varies across scientific domains, with social sciences showing the least bias. Our findings indicate that LLMs can reinforce or exacerbate existing gender imbalances in scholarly recognition. Effective mitigation strategies are needed to avoid perpetuating existing gender disparities in scientific citation practices before integrating LLMs into high-stakes academic workflows.

Related papers

• Do LLMs have a Gender (Entropy) Bias? [3.2225437367979763]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T23:06:41Z)
• LFTF: Locating First and Then Fine-Tuning for Mitigating Gender Bias in Large Language Models [13.40656836132881]
  We propose datasets named GenBiasEval and GenHintEval.<n>The GenBiasEval is responsible for evaluating the degree of gender bias in LLMs.<n>The GenHintEval is used to assess whether LLMs can provide responses consistent with prompts that contain gender hints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T12:49:37Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [91.86718720024825]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias.<n>Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning.<n>We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Evaluating Gender, Racial, and Age Biases in Large Language Models: A Comparative Analysis of Occupational and Crime Scenarios [0.0]
  This paper examines bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Findings reveal that LLMs often depict female characters more frequently than male ones in various occupations.<n>Efforts to reduce gender and racial bias often lead to outcomes that may over-index one sub-class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T20:21:20Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• "Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters [97.11173801187816]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content. This paper critically examines gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:12:57Z)
• 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)
• Causally Testing Gender Bias in LLMs: A Case Study on Occupational Bias [33.99768156365231]
  We introduce a causal formulation for bias measurement in generative language models.<n>We propose a benchmark called OccuGender, with a bias-measuring procedure to investigate occupational gender bias.<n>The results show that these models exhibit substantial occupational gender bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T22:41:24Z)

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.