From Bias Mitigation to Bias Negotiation: Governing Identity and Sociocultural Reasoning in Generative AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.18459v1
• Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 21:20:10 GMT
• Title: From Bias Mitigation to Bias Negotiation: Governing Identity and Sociocultural Reasoning in Generative AI
• Authors: Zackary Okun Dunivin, Bingyi Han, John Bollenbocher,
• Abstract summary: LLMs act in the social world by drawing upon shared cultural patterns to make social situations understandable and actionable.<n>Identity is often part of the inferential substrate of competent judgment.<n> dominant governance regime for identity-related harm remains bias mitigation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLMs act in the social world by drawing upon shared cultural patterns to make social situations understandable and actionable. Because identity is often part of the inferential substrate of competent judgment, ethical alignment requires regulating when and how systems invoke identity. Yet the dominant governance regime for identity-related harm remains bias mitigation, which treats identity primarily as a source of measurable disparities or harmful associations to be detected and suppressed. This leaves underspecified a positive, context-sensitive role for identity in interpretation. We call this governance problem bias negotiation: the normative regulation of identity-conditioned judgments of sociocultural relevance, inference, and justification. Empirically, we probe the feasibility of bias negotiation through semi-structured interviews with multiple publicly deployed chatbots. We identify recurring repertoires for negotiating identity including probabilistic framing of group tendencies and harm-value balancing. We also observe failure modes in which models avoid hard tradeoffs or apply principles inconsistently. Bias negotiation matters for justice because a positive role for sociocultural reasoning is required to recognize and potentially remediate structural inequities. But it is equally implicated in core model functionality as sociocultural competence is needed for systems that operate across heterogeneous cultural contexts. Because bias negotiation is a procedural capability expressed through deliberation and interaction, it cannot be validated by static benchmarks alone. To support targeted training, we introduce a broad but explicit framework that decomposes bias negotiation into an action space of negotiation moves (what to observe and score) and a complementary set of case features (over which the model negotiates), enabling systematic test-suite design and evaluation.

Related papers

• Position: General Alignment Has Hit a Ceiling; Edge Alignment Must Be Taken Seriously [51.03213216886717]
  We take the position that the dominant paradigm of General Alignment reaches a structural ceiling in settings with conflicting values.<n>We introduce Edge Alignment as a distinct approach in which systems preserve multi dimensional value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:51:43Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• The Epistemological Consequences of Large Language Models: Rethinking collective intelligence and institutional knowledge [0.0]
  We develop a theory of rationality as distributed across human collectives, using dual process theory as background.<n>We distinguish internalist justification, defined as reflective understanding of why a proposition is true, from externalist justification, defined as reliable transmission of truths.<n>We argue that LLMs approximate externalist reliabilism because they can reliably transmit information whose justificatory basis is established elsewhere, but they do not themselves possess reflective justification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:52:37Z)
• EMBRACE: Shaping Inclusive Opinion Representation by Aligning Implicit Conversations with Social Norms [0.14323566945483493]
  This study aims to evaluate how opinions are represented in NLP or computational models by introducing an alignment evaluation framework.<n>Our approach models the stance of responses as a proxy for the underlying opinion, enabling a considerate and reflective representation of diverse social viewpoints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-27T13:21:07Z)
• The AI Fairness Myth: A Position Paper on Context-Aware Bias [0.0]
  We argue that fairness sometimes requires deliberate, context-aware preferential treatment of historically marginalized groups.<n>Rather than viewing bias solely as a flaw to eliminate, we propose a framework that embraces corrective, intentional biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T02:47:32Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [68.62012304574012]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their reliability, fairness and potential for misuse.<n>We propose an evaluation framework to assess model reliability by analyzing responses to global and local perturbations in the embedding space.<n>Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and tracing the provenance of embedded biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• Disciplining Deliberation: A Sociotechnical Perspective on Machine Learning Trade-offs [0.0]
  Two prominent trade-offs in artificial intelligence are between predictive accuracy and fairness, and between predictive accuracy and interpretability.<n> prevailing interpretation views these formal trade-offs as directly corresponding to tensions between underlying social values.<n>I introduce a sociotechnical approach to examining the value implications of trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T05:03:18Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• Evaluate Confidence Instead of Perplexity for Zero-shot Commonsense Reasoning [85.1541170468617]
  This paper reconsiders the nature of commonsense reasoning and proposes a novel commonsense reasoning metric, Non-Replacement Confidence (NRC) Our proposed novel method boosts zero-shot performance on two commonsense reasoning benchmark datasets and further seven commonsense question-answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-23T14:42:14Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

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.