SCOPE: A Dataset of Stereotyped Prompts for Counterfactual Fairness Assessment of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05555v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:56:26 GMT
• Title: SCOPE: A Dataset of Stereotyped Prompts for Counterfactual Fairness Assessment of LLMs
• Abstract summary: SCOPE contains 241,280 prompts organized into 120,640 counterfactual pairs.<n>This resource provides a controlled, semantically aligned, and intent-aware basis for evaluating fairness, robustness, and counterfactual consistency.
• Score: 45.94124349318317
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) now serve as the foundation for a wide range of applications, from conversational assistants to decision support tools, making the issue of fairness in their results increasingly important. Previous studies have shown that LLM outputs can shift when prompts reference different demographic groups, even when intent and semantic content remain constant. However, existing resources for probing such disparities rely primarily on small, template-based counterfactual examples or fixed sentence pairs. These benchmarks offer limited linguistic diversity, narrow topical coverage, and little support for analyzing how communicative intent affects model behavior. To address these limitations, we introduce SCOPE (Stereotype-COnditioned Prompts for Evaluation), a large-scale dataset of counterfactual prompt pairs designed to enable systematic investigation of group-sensitive behavior in LLMs. SCOPE contains 241,280 prompts organized into 120,640 counterfactual pairs, each grounded in one of 1,438 topics and spanning nine bias dimensions and 1,536 demographic groups. All prompts are generated under four distinct communicative intents: Question, Recommendation, Direction, and Clarification, ensuring broad coverage of common interaction styles. This resource provides a controlled, semantically aligned, and intent-aware basis for evaluating fairness, robustness, and counterfactual consistency.

Related papers

• A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Empirical Study of LLMs for Conversation Summarization [17.601111891544885]
  We propose OmniCSEval, a unified benchmark comprising 1,800 diverse conversations across six real-world scenarios.<n>For fine-grained evaluation, we employ a bidirectional fact-checking framework that integrates key fact matching to assess completeness and conciseness.<n>We evaluate 28 LLMs across four distinct categories grouped by reasoning capability and model scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T18:57:01Z)
• Auditing Support Strategies in LLMs through Grounded Multi-Turn Social Simulation [2.102846336724103]
  Support-seeking narratives from five Reddit communities are decomposed into ordered fragments.<n>Support composition shifts systematically with estimated distress.<n>Community context shapes behavior, tracking topic and discourse norms rather than demographic categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-18T17:36:15Z)
• Query-Document Dense Vectors for LLM Relevance Judgment Bias Analysis [4.719505127252616]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used as relevance assessors for Information Retrieval (IR) evaluation collection creation.<n>We aim to understand if LLMs make systematic mistakes when judging relevance, rather than just understanding how good they are on average.<n>We introduce a clustering-based framework that embeds query-document (Q-D) pairs into a joint semantic space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T03:02:33Z)
• ClarifyMT-Bench: Benchmarking and Improving Multi-Turn Clarification for Conversational Large Language Models [32.099137908375546]
  ClarifyMT-Bench is a benchmark for multi-turn clarification in large language models (LLMs)<n>We construct 6,120 multi-turn dialogues capturing diverse ambiguity sources and interaction patterns.<n>We propose textbfClarifyAgent, an agentic approach that decomposes clarification into perception, forecasting, tracking, and planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T11:39:00Z)
• Quantifying Fairness in LLMs Beyond Tokens: A Semantic and Statistical Perspective [24.54292750583169]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate responses with inherent biases, undermining their reliability in real-world applications.<n>We propose FiSCo (Fine-grained Semantic Comparison), a novel statistical framework to evaluate group-level fairness in LLMs.<n>We decompose model outputs into semantically distinct claims and apply statistical hypothesis testing to compare inter- and intra-group similarities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T18:31:22Z)
• ExpliCa: Evaluating Explicit Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models [75.05436691700572]
  We introduce ExpliCa, a new dataset for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in explicit causal reasoning.<n>We tested seven commercial and open-source LLMs on ExpliCa through prompting and perplexity-based metrics.<n>Surprisingly, models tend to confound temporal relations with causal ones, and their performance is also strongly influenced by the linguistic order of the events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T14:23:14Z)
• 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)
• Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models [9.040736633675136]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks.<n>We introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs.<n>We propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T18:11:33Z)
• L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models [91.05820785008527]
  We propose L-Eval to institute a more standardized evaluation for long context language models (LCLMs) We build a new evaluation suite containing 20 sub-tasks, 508 long documents, and over 2,000 human-labeled query-response pairs. Results show that popular n-gram matching metrics generally can not correlate well with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:59:41Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• A Multi-level Supervised Contrastive Learning Framework for Low-Resource Natural Language Inference [54.678516076366506]
  Natural Language Inference (NLI) is a growingly essential task in natural language understanding. Here we propose a multi-level supervised contrastive learning framework named MultiSCL for low-resource natural language inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-31T05:54:18Z)

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.