Inference-Time Reasoning Selectively Reduces Implicit Social Bias in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04742v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 16:44:23 GMT
• Title: Inference-Time Reasoning Selectively Reduces Implicit Social Bias in Large Language Models
• Authors: Molly Apsel, Michael N. Jones,
• Abstract summary: We study how reasoning-enabled inference affects implicit bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that enabling reasoning significantly reduces measured implicit bias on an IAT-style evaluation for some model classes across fifteen stereotype topics.<n>This work highlights how theory from cognitive science and psychology can complement AI evaluation research by providing methodological and interpretive frameworks.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Drawing on constructs from psychology, prior work has identified a distinction between explicit and implicit bias in large language models (LLMs). While many LLMs undergo post-training alignment and safety procedures to avoid expressions of explicit social bias, they still exhibit significant implicit biases on indirect tasks resembling the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Recent work has further shown that inference-time reasoning can impair LLM performance on tasks that rely on implicit statistical learning. Motivated by a theoretical link between implicit associations and statistical learning in human cognition, we examine how reasoning-enabled inference affects implicit bias in LLMs. We find that enabling reasoning significantly reduces measured implicit bias on an IAT-style evaluation for some model classes across fifteen stereotype topics. This effect appears specific to social bias domains, as we observe no corresponding reduction for non-social implicit associations. As reasoning is increasingly enabled by default in deployed LLMs, these findings suggest that it can meaningfully alter fairness evaluation outcomes in some systems, while also raising questions about how alignment procedures interact with inference-time reasoning to drive variation in bias reduction across model types. More broadly, this work highlights how theory from cognitive science and psychology can complement AI evaluation research by providing methodological and interpretive frameworks that reveal new insights into model behavior.

Related papers

• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• A Closer Look at Bias and Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness of Large (Vision) Language Models [58.32070787537946]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enhances performance of large language models.<n>We present the first comprehensive study of CoT faithfulness in large vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T18:55:05Z)
• Evaluate Bias without Manual Test Sets: A Concept Representation Perspective for LLMs [25.62533031580287]
  Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly undermines their reliability and fairness.<n>We propose BiasLens, a test-set-free bias analysis framework based on the structure of the model's vector space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T13:50:23Z)
• Fairness Mediator: Neutralize Stereotype Associations to Mitigate Bias in Large Language Models [66.5536396328527]
  LLMs inadvertently absorb spurious correlations from training data, leading to stereotype associations between biased concepts and specific social groups.<n>We propose Fairness Mediator (FairMed), a bias mitigation framework that neutralizes stereotype associations.<n>Our framework comprises two main components: a stereotype association prober and an adversarial debiasing neutralizer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T14:23:06Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• The African Woman is Rhythmic and Soulful: An Investigation of Implicit Biases in LLM Open-ended Text Generation [3.9945212716333063]
  Implicit biases are significant because they influence the decisions made by Large Language Models (LLMs) Traditionally, explicit bias tests or embedding-based methods are employed to detect bias, but these approaches can overlook more nuanced, implicit forms of bias. We introduce two novel psychological-inspired methodologies to reveal and measure implicit biases through prompt-based and decision-making tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T13:21:33Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• 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)
• 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.