Can Fairness Be Prompted? Prompt-Based Debiasing Strategies in High-Stakes Recommendations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12935v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:30:42 GMT
• Title: Can Fairness Be Prompted? Prompt-Based Debiasing Strategies in High-Stakes Recommendations
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) can infer sensitive attributes from indirect cues like names and pronouns, potentially biasing recommendations.<n>We investigate implicit biases in LLM Recommenders (LLMRecs) and explore whether prompt-based strategies can serve as a lightweight and easy-to-use debiasing approach.
• Score: 4.852932390076274
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can infer sensitive attributes such as gender or age from indirect cues like names and pronouns, potentially biasing recommendations. While several debiasing methods exist, they require access to the LLMs' weights, are computationally costly, and cannot be used by lay users. To address this gap, we investigate implicit biases in LLM Recommenders (LLMRecs) and explore whether prompt-based strategies can serve as a lightweight and easy-to-use debiasing approach. We contribute three bias-aware prompting strategies for LLMRecs. To our knowledge, this is the first study on prompt-based debiasing approaches in LLMRecs that focuses on group fairness for users. Our experiments with 3 LLMs, 4 prompt templates, 9 sensitive attribute values, and 2 datasets show that our proposed debiasing approach, which instructs an LLM to be fair, can improve fairness by up to 74% while retaining comparable effectiveness, but might overpromote specific demographic groups in some cases.

Related papers

• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• DIF: A Framework for Benchmarking and Verifying Implicit Bias in LLMs [1.89915151018241]
  We argue that implicit bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) is not only an ethical, but also a technical issue.<n>We developed a method for calculating an easily interpretable benchmark, DIF (Demographic Implicit Fairness)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T06:53:37Z)
• Investigating and Mitigating Stereotype-aware Unfairness in LLM-based Recommendations [18.862841015556995]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented language understanding and reasoning capabilities.<n>Recent studies have revealed that LLMs are likely to inherit stereotypes that are embedded ubiquitously in word embeddings.<n>This study reveals a new variant of fairness between stereotype groups containing both users and items, to quantify discrimination against stereotypes in LLM-RS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T15:09:39Z)
• Bayesian Teaching Enables Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Models [54.38054999271322]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) don't update their beliefs as expected from the Bayesian framework.<n>We teach the LLMs to reason in a Bayesian manner by training them to mimic the predictions of the normative Bayesian model.<n>More generally, our results indicate that LLMs can effectively learn reasoning skills from examples and generalize those skills to new domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T20:13:04Z)
• Universal Model Routing for Efficient LLM Inference [69.86195589350264]
  Model routing is a technique for reducing the inference cost of large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose UniRoute, a new approach to the problem of dynamic routing, where new, previously unobserved LLMs are available at test time.<n>We show that these are estimates of a theoretically optimal routing rule, and quantify their errors via an excess risk bound.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T20:30:28Z)
• 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)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback for Bias Mitigation in LLMs [6.090496490133132]
  We propose Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback (RLDF), a novel approach for bias mitigation replacing human feedback in traditional RLHF. We utilize LLMs in multi-role debates to create a dataset that includes both high-bias and low-bias instances for training the reward model in reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T22:18:50Z)
• Prompting Fairness: Integrating Causality to Debias Large Language Models [19.76215433424235]
  Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to generating biased and discriminatory responses.<n>We propose a causality-guided debiasing framework to tackle social biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T17:46:28Z)
• ChatGPT Based Data Augmentation for Improved Parameter-Efficient Debiasing of LLMs [65.9625653425636]
  Large Language models (LLMs) exhibit harmful social biases. This work introduces a novel approach utilizing ChatGPT to generate synthetic training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T01:28:48Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• A Survey on Fairness in Large Language Models [28.05516809190299]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown powerful performance and development prospects. LLMs can capture social biases from unprocessed training data and propagate the biases to downstream tasks. Unfair LLM systems have undesirable social impacts and potential harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T03:30:22Z)
• UP5: Unbiased Foundation Model for Fairness-aware Recommendation [45.47673627667594]
  A growing concern that Large Language Models might inadvertently perpetuate societal stereotypes, resulting in unfair recommendations. This paper focuses on user-side fairness for LLM-based recommendation where the users may require a recommender system to be fair on sensitive features such as gender or age. We introduce a novel Counterfactually-Fair-Prompt (CFP) method towards Unbiased Foundation mOdels (UFO) for fairness-aware LLM-based recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-20T04:32:59Z)

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.