Breaking the Benchmark: Revealing LLM Bias via Minimal Contextual Augmentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23921v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 23:05:12 GMT
• Title: Breaking the Benchmark: Revealing LLM Bias via Minimal Contextual Augmentation
• Authors: Kaveh Eskandari Miandoab, Mahammed Kamruzzaman, Arshia Gharooni, Gene Louis Kim, Vasanth Sarathy, Ninareh Mehrabi,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models have been shown to demonstrate stereotypical biases in their representations and behavior.<n>We introduce a novel and general augmentation framework that involves three plug-and-play steps.<n>We find that Large Language Models are susceptible to perturbations to their inputs, showcasing a higher likelihood to behave stereotypically.
• Score: 12.56588481992456
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models have been shown to demonstrate stereotypical biases in their representations and behavior due to the discriminative nature of the data that they have been trained on. Despite significant progress in the development of methods and models that refrain from using stereotypical information in their decision-making, recent work has shown that approaches used for bias alignment are brittle. In this work, we introduce a novel and general augmentation framework that involves three plug-and-play steps and is applicable to a number of fairness evaluation benchmarks. Through application of augmentation to a fairness evaluation dataset (Bias Benchmark for Question Answering (BBQ)), we find that Large Language Models (LLMs), including state-of-the-art open and closed weight models, are susceptible to perturbations to their inputs, showcasing a higher likelihood to behave stereotypically. Furthermore, we find that such models are more likely to have biased behavior in cases where the target demographic belongs to a community less studied by the literature, underlining the need to expand the fairness and safety research to include more diverse communities.

Related papers

• Addressing Stereotypes in Large Language Models: A Critical Examination and Mitigation [0.0]
  Large Language models (LLMs) have gained popularity in recent years with the advancement of Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>This study inspects and highlights the need to address biases in LLMs amid growing generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)<n>We utilize bias-specific benchmarks such StereoSet and CrowSPairs to evaluate the existence of various biases in many different generative models such as BERT, GPT 3.5, and ADA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T05:43:34Z)
• A Comprehensive Study of Implicit and Explicit Biases in Large Language Models [1.0555164678638427]
  This study highlights the need to address biases in Large Language Models amid growing generative AI.<n>We studied bias-specific benchmarks such as StereoSet and CrowSPairs to evaluate the existence of various biases in multiple generative models such as BERT and GPT 3.5.<n>Results indicated fine-tuned models struggle with gender biases but excelled at identifying and avoiding racial biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T05:27:17Z)
• Silenced Biases: The Dark Side LLMs Learned to Refuse [5.2630646053506345]
  We introduce the concept of silenced biases, which are unfair preferences encoded within models' latent space.<n>We propose the Silenced Bias Benchmark (SBB), which aims to uncover these biases by employing activation steering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T11:24:50Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• ROBBIE: Robust Bias Evaluation of Large Generative Language Models [27.864027322486375]
  Different prompt-based datasets can be used to measure social bias across multiple text domains and demographic axes. We compare 6 different prompt-based bias and toxicity metrics across 12 demographic axes and 5 families of generative LLMs. We conduct a comprehensive study of how well 3 bias/toxicity mitigation techniques perform across our suite of measurements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T23:03:04Z)
• Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models [38.180696489079985]
  This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. We show that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T16:35:59Z)
• 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)
• Non-Invasive Fairness in Learning through the Lens of Data Drift [88.37640805363317]
  We show how to improve the fairness of Machine Learning models without altering the data or the learning algorithm. We use a simple but key insight: the divergence of trends between different populations, and, consecutively, between a learned model and minority populations, is analogous to data drift. We explore two strategies (model-splitting and reweighing) to resolve this drift, aiming to improve the overall conformance of models to the underlying data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:30:42Z)
• Debiasing Vision-Language Models via Biased Prompts [79.04467131711775]
  We propose a general approach for debiasing vision-language foundation models by projecting out biased directions in the text embedding. We show that debiasing only the text embedding with a calibrated projection matrix suffices to yield robust classifiers and fair generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T20:09:33Z)
• "I'm sorry to hear that": Finding New Biases in Language Models with a Holistic Descriptor Dataset [12.000335510088648]
  We present a new, more inclusive bias measurement dataset, HolisticBias, which includes nearly 600 descriptor terms across 13 different demographic axes. HolisticBias was assembled in a participatory process including experts and community members with lived experience of these terms. We demonstrate that HolisticBias is effective at measuring previously undetectable biases in token likelihoods from language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-18T20:37:25Z)
• Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models [107.82654101403264]
  Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) can be potentially dangerous in manifesting undesirable representational biases. We propose steps towards mitigating social biases during text generation. Our empirical results and human evaluation demonstrate effectiveness in mitigating bias while retaining crucial contextual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T17:52:43Z)

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.