A Scalable Entity-Based Framework for Auditing Bias in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12374v1
• Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:07:31 GMT
• Title: A Scalable Entity-Based Framework for Auditing Bias in LLMs
• Abstract summary: We introduce a scalable bias-auditing framework using named entities as probes to measure structural disparities in model behavior.<n>We conduct the largest bias audit to date, comprising 1.9 billion data points across multiple entity types, tasks, languages, models, and prompting strategies.
• Score: 3.3335717632645108
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing approaches to bias evaluation in large language models (LLMs) trade ecological validity for statistical control, relying on artificial prompts that poorly reflect real-world use, or on naturalistic tasks that lack scale and rigor. We introduce a scalable bias-auditing framework using named entities as probes to measure structural disparities in model behavior. We show that synthetic data reliably reproduces bias patterns observed in natural text, enabling large-scale analysis. Using this approach, we conduct the largest bias audit to date, comprising 1.9 billion data points across multiple entity types, tasks, languages, models, and prompting strategies. Our results reveal systematic biases: models penalize right-wing politicians, favor left-wing politicians, prefer Western and wealthy nations over the Global South, favor Western companies, and penalize firms in the defense and pharmaceutical sectors. While instruction tuning reduces bias, increasing model scale amplifies it, and prompting in Chinese or Russian does not attenuate Western-aligned preferences. These results indicate that LLMs should undergo rigorous auditing before deployment in high-stakes applications.

Related papers

• Unbiased Alignment for Large Language Models with Noisy Preferences [74.69408994904965]
  We present a theoretical framework for unbiased alignment, introducing the Unbiased Reward Model (URM) loss and the Unbiased Direct Preference Optimization (UDPO) loss.<n>By mathematically correcting the distortion induced by preference noise, our novel objectives enable unbiased model training directly from noisy datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-03T12:04:43Z)
• Evaluating LLMs in Finance Requires Explicit Bias Consideration [88.38155218924999]
  Finance-specific biases can inflate performance, contaminate backtests, and make reported results useless for deployment claims.<n>No single bias is discussed in more than 28 percent of studies.<n>We propose a Structural Validity Framework and an evaluation checklist with minimal requirements for bias diagnosis and future system design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T17:02:01Z)
• "As Eastern Powers, I will veto." : An Investigation of Nation-level Bias of Large Language Models in International Relations [7.585969077788284]
  This paper systematically examines nation-level biases exhibited by Large Language Models (LLMs) within the domain of International Relations (IR)<n>We develop a bias evaluation framework comprising three distinct tests to explore nation-level bias in various LLMs.<n>We introduce a debiasing framework that improves LLMs' factual reasoning combining Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Reflexion-based self-reflection techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T08:42:54Z)
• Multi-Reward GRPO Fine-Tuning for De-biasing Large Language Models: A Study Based on Chinese-Context Discrimination Data [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit implicit biases and discriminatory tendencies that reflect underlying social stereotypes.<n>This paper proposes a Multi-Reward Group Relative Policy Optimization framework to fine-tune LLMs toward ethical and bias-free behavior.<n> Experimental results demonstrate significant reductions in bias intensity and improved alignment with non-discriminatory standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-08T14:33:21Z)
• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [62.388554963415906]
  In finance, Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts arising from discrepancies between their pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>These conflicts are especially problematic in real-world investment services, where a model's inherent biases can misalign with institutional objectives.<n>We propose an experimental framework to investigate emergent behaviors in such conflict scenarios, offering a quantitative analysis of bias in investment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• Addressing Bias in LLMs: Strategies and Application to Fair AI-based Recruitment [49.81946749379338]
  This work seeks to analyze the capacity of Transformers-based systems to learn demographic biases present in the data.<n>We propose a privacy-enhancing framework to reduce gender information from the learning pipeline as a way to mitigate biased behaviors in the final tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:29:43Z)
• Robustly Improving LLM Fairness in Realistic Settings via Interpretability [0.16843915833103415]
  Anti-bias prompts fail when realistic contextual details are introduced.<n>We find that adding realistic context such as company names, culture descriptions from public careers pages, and selective hiring constraints induces significant racial and gender biases.<n>Our internal bias mitigation identifies race and gender-correlated directions and applies affine concept editing at inference time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T17:34:38Z)
• 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 [1.1666234644810893]
  Small models outperform larger ones in safety, suggesting that training and architecture may matter more than scale.<n>No model is fully robust to adversarial elicitation, with jailbreak attacks using low-resource languages or refusal suppression proving effective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:00:59Z)
• Investigating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models: A Large-Scale Study of Over 50 LLMs [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being adopted across a wide range of tasks. Recent research indicates that LLMs can harbor implicit biases even when they pass explicit bias evaluations. This study highlights that newer or larger language models do not automatically exhibit reduced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T03:43:18Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Causally Testing Gender Bias in LLMs: A Case Study on Occupational Bias [33.99768156365231]
  We introduce a causal formulation for bias measurement in generative language models.<n>We propose a benchmark called OccuGender, with a bias-measuring procedure to investigate occupational gender bias.<n>The results show that these models exhibit substantial occupational gender bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T22:41:24Z)

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.