LLMs Are Not a Silver Bullet: A Case Study on Software Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12640v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 12:11:57 GMT
• Title: LLMs Are Not a Silver Bullet: A Case Study on Software Fairness
• Abstract summary: Fairness is a critical requirement for human-related, high-stakes software systems.<n>We compare state-of-the-art Machine Learning (ML) and Large Language Models (LLMs) bias mitigation methods.<n>We find that ML-based methods consistently outperform LLM-based methods in both fairness and predictive performance.
• Score: 18.19943021290632
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Fairness is a critical requirement for human-related, high-stakes software systems, motivating extensive research on bias mitigation. Prior work has largely focused on tabular data settings using traditional Machine Learning (ML) methods. With the rapid rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), recent studies have begun to explore their use for bias mitigation in the same setting. However, it remains unclear whether LLM-based methods offer advantages over traditional ML methods, leaving software engineers without clear guidance for practical adoption. To address this gap, we present a large-scale study comparing state-of-the-art ML- and LLM-based bias mitigation methods. We find that ML-based methods consistently outperform LLM-based methods in both fairness and predictive performance, with even strong LLMs failing to surpass established ML baselines. To understand why prior LLM-based studies report favorable results, we analyze their evaluation settings and show that these gains are largely driven by artificially balanced test data rather than realistic imbalanced distributions. We further observe that existing LLM-based methods primarily rely on in-context learning and thus fail to leverage all available training data. Motivated by this, we explore supervised fine-tuning on the full training set and find that, while it achieves competitive results, its advantages over traditional ML methods remain limited. These findings suggest that LLMs are not a silver bullet for software fairness.

Related papers

• Automated Concept Discovery for LLM-as-a-Judge Preference Analysis [21.171990974350773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scalable evaluators of model outputs.<n>Their preference judgments exhibit systematic biases and can diverge from human evaluations.<n>We study several embedding-level concept extraction methods for analyzing LLM judge behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T20:55:16Z)
• Nonparametric LLM Evaluation from Preference Data [86.96268870461472]
  We propose a nonparametric statistical framework, DMLEval, for comparing and ranking large language models (LLMs) from preference data.<n>Our framework provides practitioners with powerful, state-of-the-art methods for comparing or ranking LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T15:00:07Z)
• Selective LLM-Guided Regularization for Enhancing Recommendation Models [7.406718588794206]
  We introduce a model-agnostic and efficient framework that activates LLM based pairwise ranking supervision only when a trainable gating mechanism informs by user history length, item popularity, and model uncertainty predicts the LLM to be reliable.<n> Experiments across multiple datasets show that this selective strategy consistently improves overall accuracy and yields substantial gains in cold start and long tail regimes, outperforming global distillation baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-25T06:30:00Z)
• Enhancing Rating Prediction with Off-the-Shelf LLMs Using In-Context User Reviews [16.394933051332657]
  Likert-scale rating prediction is a regression task that requires both language and mathematical reasoning to be solved effectively.<n>This study investigates the performance of off-the-shelf LLMs on rating prediction, providing different in-context information.<n>We find that user-written reviews significantly improve the rating prediction performance of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T03:04:20Z)
• LLM-Lasso: A Robust Framework for Domain-Informed Feature Selection and Regularization [59.75242204923353]
  We introduce LLM-Lasso, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to guide feature selection in Lasso regression.<n>LLMs generate penalty factors for each feature, which are converted into weights for the Lasso penalty using a simple, tunable model.<n>Features identified as more relevant by the LLM receive lower penalties, increasing their likelihood of being retained in the final model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T02:55:22Z)
• A Little Help Goes a Long Way: Efficient LLM Training by Leveraging Small LMs [74.35290684163718]
  A primary challenge in large language model (LLM) development is their onerous pre-training cost. This paper explores a promising paradigm to improve LLM pre-training efficiency and quality by leveraging a small language model (SLM)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T14:31:52Z)
• Fairness in Large Language Models: A Taxonomic Survey [2.669847575321326]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains.<n>Despite their promising performance in numerous real-world applications, most of these algorithms lack fairness considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T22:22:53Z)
• Small Models, Big Insights: Leveraging Slim Proxy Models To Decide When and What to Retrieve for LLMs [60.40396361115776]
  This paper introduces a novel collaborative approach, namely SlimPLM, that detects missing knowledge in large language models (LLMs) with a slim proxy model. We employ a proxy model which has far fewer parameters, and take its answers as answers. Heuristic answers are then utilized to predict the knowledge required to answer the user question, as well as the known and unknown knowledge within the LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T11:11:08Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification [91.72588235407379]
  The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T14:29:17Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Fairness of ChatGPT and the Role Of Explainable-Guided Prompts [6.079011829257036]
  Our research investigates the potential of Large-scale Language Models (LLMs), specifically OpenAI's GPT, in credit risk assessment. Our findings suggest that LLMs, when directed by judiciously designed prompts and supplemented with domain-specific knowledge, can parallel the performance of traditional Machine Learning (ML) models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T09:20:16Z)

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.