BiasTrace: Linking Reasoning Behaviours to Biased Outputs in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14161v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:16:13 GMT
• Title: BiasTrace: Linking Reasoning Behaviours to Biased Outputs in LLMs
• Abstract summary: We introduce BiasTrace, an annotation scheme for labelling reasoning behaviours in model-generated traces.<n> BiasTrace captures bias-specific behaviours as well as general reasoning patterns that may implicitly contribute to bias.<n>Our analysis shows that biased outputs often stem from subtle reasoning behaviours rather than explicitly biased language.
• Score: 19.67246453113813
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs exhibit social biases that can produce inaccurate and discriminatory inferences, posing risks in high-stakes applications. While prior work has made progress in measuring and mitigating bias, it largely focuses on final outputs of models, with limited understanding of the mechanisms that produce biased outcomes. Recent advances in LLM reasoning offers a new lens for investigating bias, yet the link between reasoning and bias remains poorly understood. Existing approaches focus primarily on final answer correctness or explicitly biased language, overlooking different behaviours in reasoning that can drive biased outcomes. We introduce BiasTrace, an annotation scheme for labelling reasoning behaviours in model-generated traces and linking them to biased outcomes. BiasTrace captures bias-specific behaviours (e.g., unsupported demographic assumptions) as well as general reasoning patterns that may implicitly contribute to bias (e.g. overthinking). We apply BiasTrace to reasoning traces in bias-sensitive contexts, scaled using validated LLM-as-a-judge methods, producing a large annotated dataset. Our analysis shows that biased outputs often stem from subtle reasoning behaviours rather than explicitly biased language, and that reasoning-level annotations improve bias detection. We further show that BiasTrace behaviours can be exploited for inference-time mitigation. These findings underscore the importance of examining a broader range of reasoning patterns to better understand bias in LLMs.

Related papers

• Does Reasoning Introduce Bias? A Study of Social Bias Evaluation and Mitigation in LLM Reasoning [21.921684911834447]
  We present the first systematic evaluation of social bias within large language models (LLMs)<n>We analyze both prediction accuracy and reasoning bias across a broad spectrum of models, including instruction-tuned and CoT-augmented variants of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT.<n>We propose Answer Distribution as Bias Proxy (ADBP), a lightweight mitigation method that detects bias by tracking how model predictions change across incremental reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T10:16:07Z)
• 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)
• How far can bias go? -- Tracing bias from pretraining data to alignment [54.51310112013655]
  This study examines the correlation between gender-occupation bias in pre-training data and their manifestation in LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that biases present in pre-training data are amplified in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T16:20:25Z)
• The African Woman is Rhythmic and Soulful: An Investigation of Implicit Biases in LLM Open-ended Text Generation [3.9945212716333063]
  Implicit biases are significant because they influence the decisions made by Large Language Models (LLMs) Traditionally, explicit bias tests or embedding-based methods are employed to detect bias, but these approaches can overlook more nuanced, implicit forms of bias. We introduce two novel psychological-inspired methodologies to reveal and measure implicit biases through prompt-based and decision-making tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T13:21:33Z)
• Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMs [8.77694178599322]
  We evaluate different approaches to quantifying label bias in a model's predictions. Our investigation reveals substantial label bias in models both before and after debiasing attempts. We propose a novel label bias calibration method tailored for few-shot prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-04T19:53:03Z)
• Investigating Bias in LLM-Based Bias Detection: Disparities between LLMs and Human Perception [13.592532358127293]
  We investigate the presence and nature of bias within Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We probe whether LLMs exhibit biases, particularly in political bias prediction and text continuation tasks.<n>We propose debiasing strategies, including prompt engineering and model fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T00:59:48Z)
• Take Care of Your Prompt Bias! Investigating and Mitigating Prompt Bias in Factual Knowledge Extraction [56.17020601803071]
  Recent research shows that pre-trained language models (PLMs) suffer from "prompt bias" in factual knowledge extraction. This paper aims to improve the reliability of existing benchmarks by thoroughly investigating and mitigating prompt bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:04:35Z)
• 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)
• Self-supervised debiasing using low rank regularization [59.84695042540525]
  Spurious correlations can cause strong biases in deep neural networks, impairing generalization ability. We propose a self-supervised debiasing framework potentially compatible with unlabeled samples. Remarkably, the proposed debiasing framework significantly improves the generalization performance of self-supervised learning baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T08:26:19Z)
• 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)
• Mitigating Gender Bias Amplification in Distribution by Posterior Regularization [75.3529537096899]
  We investigate the gender bias amplification issue from the distribution perspective. We propose a bias mitigation approach based on posterior regularization. Our study sheds the light on understanding the bias amplification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-13T11:07:10Z)

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.