Intersectional Fairness in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20677v2
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 01:37:34 GMT
• Title: Intersectional Fairness in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive settings.<n>This paper systematically evaluate intersectional fairness in six LLMs using ambiguous and disambiguated contexts.
• Score: 3.1746607422907513
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive settings, raising concerns about fairness and biases, particularly across intersectional demographic attributes. In this paper, we systematically evaluate intersectional fairness in six LLMs using ambiguous and disambiguated contexts from two benchmark datasets. We assess LLM behavior using bias scores, subgroup fairness metrics, accuracy, and consistency through multi-run analysis across contexts and negative and non-negative question polarities. Our results show that while modern LLMs generally perform well in ambiguous contexts, this limits the informativeness of fairness metrics due to sparse non-unknown predictions. In disambiguated contexts, LLM accuracy is influenced by stereotype alignment, with models being more accurate when the correct answer reinforces a stereotype than when it contradicts it. This pattern is especially pronounced in race-gender intersections, where directional bias toward stereotypes is stronger. Subgroup fairness metrics further indicate that, despite low observed disparity in some cases, outcome distributions remain uneven across intersectional groups. Across repeated runs, responses also vary in consistency, including stereotype-aligned responses. Overall, our findings show that apparent model competence is partly associated with stereotype-consistent cues, and no evaluated LLM achieves consistently reliable or fair behavior across intersectional settings. These findings highlight the need for evaluation beyond accuracy, emphasizing the importance of combining bias, subgroup fairness, and consistency metrics across intersectional groups, contexts, and repeated runs.

Related papers

• Dual-Branch Cross-Projection Debiasing through Diffusion-based Disentanglement [66.67463557274358]
  Foundation models trained on biased datasets often rely on spurious correlations between target labels and non-causal attributes.<n>We introduce Confidence-guided Concept Mining (CBCM) to identify reliable spurious attributes without attribute annotations.<n>We propose Dual-branch Cross-projection Debiasing (DCD), a prompt-tuning framework that separates target and spurious representations into two branches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T05:28:47Z)
• Addressing Stereotypes in Large Language Models: A Critical Examination and Mitigation [0.0]
  Large Language models (LLMs) have gained popularity in recent years with the advancement of Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>This study inspects and highlights the need to address biases in LLMs amid growing generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)<n>We utilize bias-specific benchmarks such StereoSet and CrowSPairs to evaluate the existence of various biases in many different generative models such as BERT, GPT 3.5, and ADA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T05:43:34Z)
• A Comprehensive Study of Implicit and Explicit Biases in Large Language Models [1.0555164678638427]
  This study highlights the need to address biases in Large Language Models amid growing generative AI.<n>We studied bias-specific benchmarks such as StereoSet and CrowSPairs to evaluate the existence of various biases in multiple generative models such as BERT and GPT 3.5.<n>Results indicated fine-tuned models struggle with gender biases but excelled at identifying and avoiding racial biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T05:27:17Z)
• Judging with Confidence: Calibrating Autoraters to Preference Distributions [56.17041629492863]
  We argue that a reliable autorater must learn to model the full distribution of preferences defined by a target population.<n>We present two learning methods tailored to different data conditions.<n>Our results show that finetuning autoraters with a distribution-matching objective leads to verbalized probability predictions that are better aligned with the target preference distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T20:36:41Z)
• 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)
• Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs [29.112649816695203]
  Relative Bias is a method designed to assess how an LLM's behavior deviates from other LLMs within a specified target domain.<n>We introduce two complementary methodologies: (1) Embedding Transformation analysis, which captures relative bias patterns through sentence representations over the embedding space, and (2) LLM-as-a-Judge, which employs a language model to evaluate outputs comparatively.<n>Applying our framework to several case studies on bias and alignment scenarios following by statistical tests for validation, we find strong alignment between the two scoring methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T01:59:54Z)
• 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)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation [49.3814117521631]
  Standard benchmarks of bias and fairness in large language models (LLMs) measure the association between the user attributes stated or implied by a prompt.<n>We develop analogous RUTEd evaluations from three contexts of real-world use: children's bedtime stories, user personas, and English language learning exercises.<n>We find that standard bias metrics have no significant correlation with the more realistic bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T01:49:15Z)
• A Theory of Response Sampling in LLMs: Part Descriptive and Part Prescriptive [53.08398658452411]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making.<n>We show that this sampling behavior resembles that of human decision-making.<n>We show that this deviation of a sample from the statistical norm towards a prescriptive component consistently appears in concepts across diverse real-world domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• Correcting Underrepresentation and Intersectional Bias for Classification [49.1574468325115]
  We consider the problem of learning from data corrupted by underrepresentation bias. We show that with a small amount of unbiased data, we can efficiently estimate the group-wise drop-out rates. We show that our algorithm permits efficient learning for model classes of finite VC dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:25:44Z)

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.