Evaluating Second-Order Bias of LLMs Through Epistemic Entitlement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17506v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 04:28:56 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Second-Order Bias of LLMs Through Epistemic Entitlement
• Abstract summary: We call this second-order bias: social bias in an LLM's judgment about social bias.<n>We develop metrics to measure how biased LLM judges are in inferring demographics for acceptability without sufficient support.<n>Our work points to the need for LLM bias evaluation in judgment tasks and broadly, for more theoretically grounded approaches to bias evaluation in NLP.
• Score: 31.07429782962401
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluations of social bias in LLMs largely focus on whether models generate or imply biased content. However, as LLMs are increasingly used as judges of bias, they may exhibit social biases in subtler ways in how they evaluate biased content, which current methods do not systematically capture. We call this second-order bias: social bias in an LLM's judgment about social bias, which we evaluate through a novel, philosophically grounded reasoning task. Drawing on entitlement epistemology, we conceptualize bias as misplaced foundational knowledge that shapes an agent's rational inquiry, and derive a logical reasoning task for LLMs to judge to whom a biased text is acceptable or non-acceptable. We develop two simple metrics to measure how biased LLM judges are in inferring demographics for acceptability without sufficient support, and how these inferences vary across groups targeted by biased texts. Evaluating open and closed models, we find that our task evades safety guardrails by surfacing bias in model judgment. It varies systematically across target groups, reflects implicit social maps, and shows how models are still triggered by demographic labels. Our work points to the need for LLM bias evaluation in judgment tasks and broadly, for more theoretically grounded approaches to bias evaluation in NLP. We release our code and model responses at https://github.com/uofthcdslab/second-order-bias.

Related papers

• Judging with Many Minds: Do More Perspectives Mean Less Prejudice? On Bias Amplifications and Resistance in Multi-Agent Based LLM-as-Judge [70.89799989428367]
  We conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias.<n>We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T03:56:41Z)
• 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)
• Implicit Bias in LLMs: A Survey [2.07180164747172]
  This paper provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature on implicit bias in Large language models.<n>We begin by introducing key concepts, theories and methods related to implicit bias in psychology.<n>We categorize detection methods into three primary approaches: word association, task-oriented text generation and decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T16:49:37Z)
• What's Not Said Still Hurts: A Description-Based Evaluation Framework for Measuring Social Bias in LLMs [8.219247185418821]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit social biases inherited from their training data.<n>We introduce the Description-based Bias Benchmark (DBB), a novel dataset designed to assess bias at the semantic level.<n>We analyze six state-of-the-art LLMs, revealing that while models reduce bias in response at the term level, they continue to reinforce biases in nuanced settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T04:25:54Z)
• Explicit vs. Implicit: Investigating Social Bias in Large Language Models through Self-Reflection [18.625071242029936]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit various biases and stereotypes in their generated content.<n>This paper presents a systematic framework to investigate and compare explicit and implicit biases in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-04T14:08:52Z)
• 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)
• Measuring Implicit Bias in Explicitly Unbiased Large Language Models [14.279977138893846]
  Large language models (LLMs) can pass explicit social bias tests but still harbor implicit biases. We introduce two new measures of bias: LLM Implicit Bias, a prompt-based method for revealing implicit bias; and LLM Decision Bias, a strategy to detect subtle discrimination in decision-making tasks. Using these measures, we found pervasive stereotype biases mirroring those in society in 8 value-aligned models across 4 social categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T15:59:23Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• "Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters [97.11173801187816]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content. This paper critically examines gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:12:57Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)

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.