The Bias is in the Details: An Assessment of Cognitive Bias in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.22856v1
• Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:09:42 GMT
• Title: The Bias is in the Details: An Assessment of Cognitive Bias in LLMs
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in real-world decision-making processes.<n>This paper presents a large-scale evaluation of eight well-established cognitive biases across 45 LLMs.<n>We find that both model size and prompt specificity play a significant role on bias susceptibility.
• Score: 1.9651471153360769
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in real-world decision-making processes, it becomes crucial to examine the extent to which they exhibit cognitive biases. Extensively studied in the field of psychology, cognitive biases appear as systematic distortions commonly observed in human judgments. This paper presents a large-scale evaluation of eight well-established cognitive biases across 45 LLMs, analyzing over 2.8 million LLM responses generated through controlled prompt variations. To achieve this, we introduce a novel evaluation framework based on multiple-choice tasks, hand-curate a dataset of 220 decision scenarios targeting fundamental cognitive biases in collaboration with psychologists, and propose a scalable approach for generating diverse prompts from human-authored scenario templates. Our analysis shows that LLMs exhibit bias-consistent behavior in 17.8-57.3% of instances across a range of judgment and decision-making contexts targeting anchoring, availability, confirmation, framing, interpretation, overattribution, prospect theory, and representativeness biases. We find that both model size and prompt specificity play a significant role on bias susceptibility as follows: larger size (>32B parameters) can reduce bias in 39.5% of cases, while higher prompt detail reduces most biases by up to 14.9%, except in one case (Overattribution), which is exacerbated by up to 8.8%.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Hidden Costs of Personalization in Large Language Models [55.07935163900691]
  We identify three emerging risks: (1) irrelevant personalization, where models reference personal information in unnecessary contexts; (2) preference narrowing, where models reinforce informational echo chambers; and (3) sycophantic bias, where models agree excessively with user opinions.<n>We propose PRISK, a dynamic evaluation framework with automated data generation and tailored metrics that uncovers systematic limitations in current AI assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T20:05:12Z)
• Sociodemographic Biases in Educational Counselling by Large Language Models [61.30199414932204]
  This study examines sociodemographic biases in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate responses from six LLMs answering questions about 900 vignettes describing students in diverse circumstances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:08:22Z)
• SocioEval: A Template-Based Framework for Evaluating Socioeconomic Status Bias in Foundation Models [0.19703625025720697]
  We introduce SocioEval, a template-based framework for evaluating socioeconomic bias in foundation models through decision-making tasks.<n>Our findings demonstrate that bias manifests differently across themes lifestyle judgments show 10$times$ higher bias than education-related decisions.<n>SocioEval provides a scalable, foundation for auditing class-based bias in language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T02:47:37Z)
• CogBias: Measuring and Mitigating Cognitive Bias in Large Language Models [8.81733256907103]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making contexts.<n>We show that cognitive biases emerge systematically across all four families of cognitive biases: Judgment, Information Processing, Social, and Response.<n>We apply activation steering to modulate biased behavior, achieving 26--32% reduction in bias score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T20:22:14Z)
• When Names Change Verdicts: Intervention Consistency Reveals Systematic Bias in LLM Decision-Making [0.0]
  ICE-Guard is a framework applying intervention consistency testing to detect three types of spurious feature reliance.<n>We evaluate 11 large language models (LLMs) across 10 high-stakes domains.<n>We demonstrate an ICE-guided detect-diagnose-mitigate-verify loop achieving cumulative 78% bias reduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T06:21:08Z)
• Adaptive Generation of Bias-Eliciting Questions for LLMs [18.608477560948003]
  Large language models (LLMs) are now widely deployed in user-facing applications, reaching hundreds of millions worldwide.<n>We introduce a counterfactual bias evaluation framework that automatically generates realistic, open-ended questions over sensitive attributes such as sex, race, or religion.<n>We also capture distinct response dimensions that are increasingly relevant in user interactions, such as asymmetric refusals and explicit acknowledgment of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T13:08:10Z)
• 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)
• Cognitive Debiasing Large Language Models for Decision-Making [71.2409973056137]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in supporting decision-making applications.<n>We propose a cognitive debiasing approach, self-adaptive cognitive debiasing (SACD)<n>Our method follows three sequential steps -- bias determination, bias analysis, and cognitive debiasing -- to iteratively mitigate potential cognitive biases in prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T11:23:05Z)
• Investigating the Impact of LLM Personality on Cognitive Bias Manifestation in Automated Decision-Making Tasks [4.65004369765875]
  Personality traits play a crucial role in either amplifying or reducing biases.<n>Conscientiousness and Agreeableness may generally enhance the efficacy of bias mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T03:15:54Z)
• Actions Speak Louder than Words: Agent Decisions Reveal Implicit Biases in Language Models [10.565316815513235]
  Large language models (LLMs) may still exhibit implicit biases when simulating human behavior.<n>We show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant sociodemographic disparities in nearly all simulations.<n>When comparing our findings to real-world disparities reported in empirical studies, we find that the biases we uncovered are directionally aligned but markedly amplified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T05:21:31Z)
• STOP! Benchmarking Large Language Models with Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions [6.19084217044276]
  Mitigating explicit and implicit biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a critical focus in the field of natural language processing.<n>We introduce the Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions dataset, which includes 450 offensive progressions containing 2,700 unique sentences.<n>Our findings reveal that even the best-performing models detect bias inconsistently, with success rates ranging from 19.3% to 69.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T18:34:38Z)
• VLBiasBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Bias in Large Vision-Language Model [72.13121434085116]
  We introduce VLBiasBench, a benchmark to evaluate biases in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>VLBiasBench features a dataset that covers nine distinct categories of social biases, including age, disability status, gender, nationality, physical appearance, race, religion, profession, social economic status, as well as two intersectional bias categories: race x gender and race x social economic status.<n>We conduct extensive evaluations on 15 open-source models as well as two advanced closed-source models, yielding new insights into the biases present in these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T10:56:59Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [24.206975650221732]
  This study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings.<n>We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T01:12:28Z)
• Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs [19.87475562475802]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. LLMs have been shown to inherit societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to bias functionally resembling cognitive bias. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T02:35:56Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• 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.