Simulating a Bias Mitigation Scenario in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14438v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 21:22:33 GMT
• Title: Simulating a Bias Mitigation Scenario in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have fundamentally transformed the field of natural language processing.<n>However, their vulnerability to biases presents a notable obstacle that threatens both fairness and trust.<n>This review offers an extensive analysis of the bias landscape in LLMs, tracing its roots and expressions across various NLP tasks.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have fundamentally transformed the field of natural language processing; however, their vulnerability to biases presents a notable obstacle that threatens both fairness and trust. This review offers an extensive analysis of the bias landscape in LLMs, tracing its roots and expressions across various NLP tasks. Biases are classified into implicit and explicit types, with particular attention given to their emergence from data sources, architectural designs, and contextual deployments. This study advances beyond theoretical analysis by implementing a simulation framework designed to evaluate bias mitigation strategies in practice. The framework integrates multiple approaches including data curation, debiasing during model training, and post-hoc output calibration and assesses their impact in controlled experimental settings. In summary, this work not only synthesizes existing knowledge on bias in LLMs but also contributes original empirical validation through simulation of mitigation strategies.

Related papers

• How and Why LLMs Generalize: A Fine-Grained Analysis of LLM Reasoning from Cognitive Behaviors to Low-Level Patterns [51.02752099869218]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) display strikingly different generalization behaviors.<n>We introduce a novel benchmark that decomposes reasoning into atomic core skills.<n>We show that RL-tuned models maintain more stable behavioral profiles and resist collapse in reasoning skills, whereas SFT models exhibit sharper drift and overfit to surface patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-30T08:16:20Z)
• LANPO: Bootstrapping Language and Numerical Feedback for Reinforcement Learning in LLMs [73.27182315028021]
  LANPO is a framework that cleanly separates the roles of feedback: language guides exploration, while numerical rewards drive optimization.<n>Our work provides a robust method for integrating historical experiences into the LLM RL loop, creating more effective and data-efficient learning agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T15:51:19Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, driving advancements in machine translation, summarization, and conversational agents.<n>Recent studies indicate that LLMs remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks designed to elicit biased responses.<n>This work proposes a scalable benchmarking framework to evaluate LLM robustness against adversarial bias elicitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:00:59Z)
• 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)
• Model-free Methods for Event History Analysis and Efficient Adjustment (PhD Thesis) [55.2480439325792]
  This thesis is a series of independent contributions to statistics unified by a model-free perspective.<n>The first chapter elaborates on how a model-free perspective can be used to formulate flexible methods that leverage prediction techniques from machine learning.<n>The second chapter studies the concept of local independence, which describes whether the evolution of one process is directly influenced by another.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T19:24:09Z)
• An Analysis for Reasoning Bias of Language Models with Small Initialization [8.380004565348619]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized Natural Language Processing by demonstrating exceptional performance across diverse tasks.<n>This study investigates the impact of the parameter initialization scale on the training behavior and task preferences of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T15:23:26Z)
• Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation [4.606140332500086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T23:54:53Z)
• 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)
• CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models [58.57987316300529]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks.<n>To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets.<n>We propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:31:37Z)
• Interpreting Bias in Large Language Models: A Feature-Based Approach [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable performance across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This paper investigates the propagation of biases within LLMs through a novel feature-based analytical approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T07:28:15Z)
• Debiasing Multimodal Large Language Models via Penalization of Language Priors [38.97645845493758]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become indispensable tools in computer vision and natural language processing.<n>Despite their advancements, our investigation reveals a noteworthy bias: the generated content is often driven more by the inherent priors of the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) than by the input image.<n>We propose two simple, training-free strategies to rectify these biases and redirect the model's focus toward visual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T12:35:07Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

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.