A Multifaceted Analysis of Negative Bias in Large Language Models through the Lens of Parametric Knowledge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.10881v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 01:18:18 GMT
• Title: A Multifaceted Analysis of Negative Bias in Large Language Models through the Lens of Parametric Knowledge
• Authors: Jongyoon Song, Sangwon Yu, Sungroh Yoon,
• Abstract summary: Negative bias refers to the tendency of large language models to excessively generate negative responses in binary decision tasks.<n>We show that large language models exhibit format-level negative bias, meaning the prompt format more influences their responses than the semantics of the negative response.<n>We identify a shortcut behavior in which models tend to generate negative responses when they lack sufficient knowledge to answer a yes-no question.
• Score: 48.00855840536793
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Negative bias refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to excessively generate negative responses in binary decision tasks (e.g., yes-no question answering). Previous research has focused on detecting and addressing negative attention heads that induce negative bias. However, the underlying detailed factors influencing negative bias remain underexplored. In this paper, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit format-level negative bias, meaning the prompt format more influences their responses than the semantics of the negative response. For the fine-grained study of the negative bias, we introduce a pipeline for constructing the evaluation set, which systematically categorizes the dataset into three subsets based on the model's parametric knowledge: correct, incorrect, and insufficient relevant knowledge. Through analysis of this evaluation set, we identify a shortcut behavior in which models tend to generate negative responses when they lack sufficient knowledge to answer a yes-no question, leading to negative bias. We further examine how negative bias changes under various prompting scenarios related to parametric knowledge. We observe that providing relevant context and offering an "I don't know" option generally reduces negative bias, whereas chain-of-thought prompting tends to amplify the bias. Finally, we demonstrate that the degree of negative bias can vary depending on the type of prompt, which influences the direction of the response. Our work reveals the various factors that influence negative bias, providing critical insights for mitigating it in LLMs.

Related papers

• Explicit vs. Implicit: Investigating Social Bias in Large Language Models through Self-Reflection [18.625071242029936]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit various biases and stereotypes in their generated content.<n>This paper presents a systematic framework to investigate and compare explicit and implicit biases in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-04T14:08:52Z)
• How far can bias go? -- Tracing bias from pretraining data to alignment [54.51310112013655]
  This study examines the correlation between gender-occupation bias in pre-training data and their manifestation in LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that biases present in pre-training data are amplified in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T16:20:25Z)
• Covert Bias: The Severity of Social Views' Unalignment in Language Models Towards Implicit and Explicit Opinion [0.40964539027092917]
  We evaluate the severity of bias toward a view by using a biased model in edge cases of excessive bias scenarios. Our findings reveal a discrepancy in LLM performance in identifying implicit and explicit opinions, with a general tendency of bias toward explicit opinions of opposing stances. The direct, incautious responses of the unaligned models suggest a need for further refinement of decisiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T15:23:00Z)
• Correcting Negative Bias in Large Language Models through Negative Attention Score Alignment [26.598938398594402]
  We observe that language models exhibit a negative bias in the binary decisions of complex reasoning tasks.<n>We propose a negative attention score (NAS) to systematically and quantitatively formulate negative bias.<n>We show that NASA significantly reduces the gap between precision and recall caused by negative bias while preserving their generalization abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T19:50:57Z)
• Evaluating Nuanced Bias in Large Language Model Free Response Answers [8.775925011558995]
  We identify several kinds of nuanced bias in free text that cannot be identified by multiple choice tests. We present a semi-automated pipeline for detecting these types of bias by first eliminating answers that can be automatically classified as unbiased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T19:58:13Z)
• Large Language Models are Skeptics: False Negative Problem of Input-conflicting Hallucination [36.01680298955394]
  We identify a new category of bias that induces input-conflicting hallucinations. We show that large language models (LLMs) generate responses inconsistent with the content of the input context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T01:53:25Z)
• Take Care of Your Prompt Bias! Investigating and Mitigating Prompt Bias in Factual Knowledge Extraction [56.17020601803071]
  Recent research shows that pre-trained language models (PLMs) suffer from "prompt bias" in factual knowledge extraction. This paper aims to improve the reliability of existing benchmarks by thoroughly investigating and mitigating prompt bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:04:35Z)
• 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)
• Mitigating Bias for Question Answering Models by Tracking Bias Influence [84.66462028537475]
  We propose BMBI, an approach to mitigate the bias of multiple-choice QA models. Based on the intuition that a model would lean to be more biased if it learns from a biased example, we measure the bias level of a query instance. We show that our method could be applied to multiple QA formulations across multiple bias categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T00:49:09Z)
• Investigating the Role of Negatives in Contrastive Representation Learning [59.30700308648194]
  Noise contrastive learning is a popular technique for unsupervised representation learning. We focus on disambiguating the role of one of these parameters: the number of negative examples. We find that the results broadly agree with our theory, while our vision experiments are murkier with performance sometimes even being insensitive to the number of negatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T06:44:16Z)
• UnQovering Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questions [68.81749777034409]
  We present UNQOVER, a framework to probe and quantify biases through underspecified questions. We show that a naive use of model scores can lead to incorrect bias estimates due to two forms of reasoning errors. We use this metric to analyze four important classes of stereotypes: gender, nationality, ethnicity, and religion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T01:49:52Z)

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.