Unequal Verdicts: Investigating Gender Bias in LLM-Based Fake News Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03627v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 13:14:06 GMT
• Title: Unequal Verdicts: Investigating Gender Bias in LLM-Based Fake News Detection
• Abstract summary: This study presents the first systematic investigation of gender bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)-based fake news detection using real-world data.<n>We augment the LIAR benchmark with three gender variants of speaker job titles for each statement to test whether veracity judgments vary solely based on gender presentation.<n>All models exhibit gender sensitivity: 9.79%-35.13% of statements receive inconsistent labels across the three variants, with Male-Female comparisons showing 6.5%-23.6% flip rates.
• Score: 2.8866345167758145
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of gender bias in LLM-based fake news detection using real-world data. We augment the LIAR benchmark with three gender variants of speaker job titles (Neutral, Male, Female) for each statement to test whether veracity judgments vary solely based on gender presentation. Six state-of-the-art LLMs are evaluated across multiple bias and fairness metrics. All models exhibit gender sensitivity: 9.79%-35.13% of statements receive inconsistent labels across the three variants, with Male-Female comparisons showing 6.5%-23.6% flip rates. Two primary bias manifestations are identified: instability (inconsistent judgments) and directionality (systematic favoritism). Five models show statistically significant directional effects, with the strongest effects displaying male-skeptic patterns. These findings demonstrate that gender bias undermines both reliability and fairness in LLM-based fake news detection, highlighting the need for bias-aware evaluation and mitigation strategies. The augmented dataset is publicly released to support future research.

Related papers

• Bias in Gender Bias Benchmarks: How Spurious Features Distort Evaluation [116.86965910589775]
  We show that even minimal perturbations, such as masking just 10% of objects or weakly blurring backgrounds, can dramatically alter bias scores.<n>This suggests that current bias evaluations reflect model responses to spurious features rather than gender bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-09T11:14:11Z)
• Measuring Bias or Measuring the Task: Understanding the Brittle Nature of LLM Gender Biases [2.9803250365852443]
  This paper examines how signaling the evaluative purpose of a task impacts measured gender bias in LLMs.<n>We find that prompts that more clearly align with (gender bias) evaluation framing elicit distinct gender output distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T16:32:18Z)
• Towards Fair Rankings: Leveraging LLMs for Gender Bias Detection and Measurement [6.92803536773427]
  Social biases in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Information Retrieval (IR) systems are an ongoing challenge.<n>We aim to address this issue by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to detect and measure gender bias in passage ranking.<n>We introduce a novel gender fairness metric, named Class-wise Weighted Exposure (CWEx), aiming to address existing limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T16:39:12Z)
• The LLM Wears Prada: Analysing Gender Bias and Stereotypes through Online Shopping Data [8.26034886618475]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models can predict an individual's gender based solely on online shopping histories.<n>Using a dataset of historical online purchases from users in the United States, we evaluate the ability of six LLMs to classify gender.<n>Results indicate that while models can infer gender with moderate accuracy, their decisions are often rooted in stereotypical associations between product categories and gender.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:56:08Z)
• Assessing Gender Bias in LLMs: Comparing LLM Outputs with Human Perceptions and Official Statistics [0.0]
  This study investigates gender bias in large language models (LLMs) We compare their gender perception to that of human respondents, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, and a 50% no-bias benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T22:43:18Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [91.86718720024825]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias.<n>Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning.<n>We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• GenderCARE: A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing and Reducing Gender Bias in Large Language Models [73.23743278545321]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in natural language generation, but have also been observed to magnify societal biases.<n>GenderCARE is a comprehensive framework that encompasses innovative Criteria, bias Assessment, Reduction techniques, and Evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T15:35:46Z)
• GenderBias-\emph{VL}: Benchmarking Gender Bias in Vision Language Models via Counterfactual Probing [72.0343083866144]
  This paper introduces the GenderBias-emphVL benchmark to evaluate occupation-related gender bias in Large Vision-Language Models. Using our benchmark, we extensively evaluate 15 commonly used open-source LVLMs and state-of-the-art commercial APIs. Our findings reveal widespread gender biases in existing LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T05:55:15Z)
• Disclosure and Mitigation of Gender Bias in LLMs [64.79319733514266]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate biased responses. We propose an indirect probing framework based on conditional generation. We explore three distinct strategies to disclose explicit and implicit gender bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T04:48:55Z)
• Probing Explicit and Implicit Gender Bias through LLM Conditional Text Generation [64.79319733514266]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate biased and toxic responses. We propose a conditional text generation mechanism without the need for predefined gender phrases and stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T05:31:46Z)

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.