Missing the Margins: A Systematic Literature Review on the Demographic Representativeness of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.01864v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:11:13 GMT
• Title: Missing the Margins: A Systematic Literature Review on the Demographic Representativeness of LLMs
• Authors: Indira Sen, Marlene Lutz, Elisa Rogers, David Garcia, Markus Strohmaier,
• Abstract summary: We review 211 papers on the demographic representativeness of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that while 29% of the studies report positive conclusions on the representativeness of LLMs, 30% of these do not evaluate LLMs across multiple demographic categories.<n>More than a third of the papers do not define the target population to whom their findings apply.
• Score: 7.864491832722478
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Many applications of Large Language Models (LLMs) require them to either simulate people or offer personalized functionality, making the demographic representativeness of LLMs crucial for equitable utility. At the same time, we know little about the extent to which these models actually reflect the demographic attributes and behaviors of certain groups or populations, with conflicting findings in empirical research. To shed light on this debate, we review 211 papers on the demographic representativeness of LLMs. We find that while 29% of the studies report positive conclusions on the representativeness of LLMs, 30% of these do not evaluate LLMs across multiple demographic categories or within demographic subcategories. Another 35% and 47% of the papers concluding positively fail to specify these subcategories altogether for gender and race, respectively. Of the articles that do report subcategories, fewer than half include marginalized groups in their study. Finally, more than a third of the papers do not define the target population to whom their findings apply; of those that do define it either implicitly or explicitly, a large majority study only the U.S. Taken together, our findings suggest an inflated perception of LLM representativeness in the broader community. We recommend more precise evaluation methods and comprehensive documentation of demographic attributes to ensure the responsible use of LLMs for social applications. Our annotated list of papers and analysis code is publicly available.

Related papers

• PapersPlease: A Benchmark for Evaluating Motivational Values of Large Language Models Based on ERG Theory [24.290880164707122]
  We introduce PapersPlease, a benchmark consisting of 3,700 moral dilemmas designed to investigate large language models' decision-making.<n>In our setup, LLMs act as immigration inspectors deciding whether to approve or deny entry based on the short narratives of people.<n>Our analysis of six LLMs reveals statistically significant patterns in decision-making, suggesting that LLMs encode implicit preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T07:09:11Z)
• Veracity Bias and Beyond: Uncovering LLMs' Hidden Beliefs in Problem-Solving Reasoning [4.452208564152158]
  Despite human value-aligned models' alignment against demographic stereotypes, they have been shown to exhibit biases under various social contexts.<n>We show two forms of such veracity biases: Attribution Bias, where models disproportionately attribute correct solutions to certain demographic groups, and Evaluation Bias, where models' assessment of identical solutions varies based on perceived demographic authorship.<n>Our findings indicate that demographic bias extends beyond surface-level stereotypes and social context provocations, raising concerns about LLMs' deployment in educational and evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T02:13:48Z)
• Evaluating how LLM annotations represent diverse views on contentious topics [3.405231040967506]
  We show that generative large language models (LLMs) tend to be biased in the same directions on the same demographic categories within the same datasets.<n>We conclude with a discussion of the implications for researchers and practitioners using LLMs for automated data annotation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T22:53:15Z)
• Algorithmic Fidelity of Large Language Models in Generating Synthetic German Public Opinions: A Case Study [23.458234676060716]
  This study investigates the algorithmic fidelity of large language models (LLMs)<n>We prompt different LLMs to generate synthetic public opinions reflective of German subpopulations by incorporating demographic features into the persona prompts.<n>Our results show that Llama performs better than other LLMs at representing subpopulations, particularly when there is lower opinion diversity within those groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:46:32Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• 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)
• A Theory of Response Sampling in LLMs: Part Descriptive and Part Prescriptive [53.08398658452411]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making.<n>We show that this sampling behavior resembles that of human decision-making.<n>We show that this deviation of a sample from the statistical norm towards a prescriptive component consistently appears in concepts across diverse real-world domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• Large Language Models: A Survey [66.39828929831017]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks.<n>LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• "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)
• Investigating Subtler Biases in LLMs: Ageism, Beauty, Institutional, and Nationality Bias in Generative Models [0.0]
  This paper investigates bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the "what is beautiful is good" bias found in people in experimental psychology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-16T07:07:04Z)
• 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)

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.