arXiv:2609.38036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding gender biases in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly important as these systems become embedded in decision-support tools with...
arXiv:2502.10577v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Instruct-based large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and even amplify gender bias when prompted with contextually constra...
arXiv:2608. 03627v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored.
arXiv:2607. 28934v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in the distribution of scarce resources, raising concerns about biased allocations based on characteristics like race and gender.
arXiv:2601. 06861v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background: Large language models (LLMs) harbor systematic biases that are particularly consequential in workplace and HR contexts, where their outputs increasingly influence hiring, job design, and organizational decisions.
The paper reports the first systematic audit of open‑weight large language models (LLMs) in hiring contexts, examining how job‑posting language influences recruiter and job‑seeker simulations across six models. It finds that agentic language lowers recruiter scores for female candidates while communal language mitigates this effect, and that coded‑exclusion language sharply reduces recruiter scores for non‑White candidates and discourages non‑White personas from applying. The study also identifies the explicit demographic label as the main causal factor and proposes a concrete pre‑deployment audit protocol aligned with EU and U.S. regulatory requirements.
The paper introduces a novel framework for assessing second‑order bias in large language models (LLMs), defined as bias in how an LLM judges the acceptability of biased content. Using principles from entitlement epistemology, the authors design a reasoning task that asks LLMs to determine whether a biased text is acceptable for specific demographic groups, and propose two metrics to quantify biased judgments. Experiments on both open‑source and closed‑source models reveal that the task bypasses safety guardrails, uncovers systematic variations across target groups, and demonstrates that models still rely on demographic labels when evaluating bias.
The paper introduces WinoQueer-NL, a Dutch adaptation of the English WinoQueer benchmark, designed to assess anti‑queer bias in Dutch language models. After validating the dataset with 43 queer Dutch participants, the authors expanded it to 42,906 sentences and evaluated several Dutch and multilingual models, finding that while overall bias scores appeared neutral, specific identities—particularly transgender and non‑binary—were disproportionately favored in stereotypical sentences. The study underscores the need for culturally grounded datasets to identify and mitigate biases that affect marginalized groups in Dutch NLP systems.
arXiv:2605.01048v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Counterfactual prompting (i.e., perturbing a single factor and measuring output change) is widely used to evaluate things like LLM bias and C...
The paper introduces WinoQueer‑NL, a Dutch adaptation of the English WinoQueer benchmark, designed to assess anti‑queer bias in Dutch language models. After validating the dataset with 43 queer Dutch participants, the authors released 42,906 sentences and evaluated several Dutch‑specific and multilingual models, finding that while overall bias scores were neutral, certain models disproportionately favored stereotypical statements for transgender and non‑binary identities. The study underscores the need for culturally grounded datasets to identify and mitigate biases that affect marginalized groups in Dutch NLP systems.
arXiv:2608. 13328v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally?
The study investigates how speech‑to‑speech (S2S) models handle gender, distinguishing between the acoustic voice and the content’s gender cues. Experiments across five models in English, Spanish, and Mandarin show that while the rendered voice remains unbiased, the models consistently attribute speaker gender based on textual content rather than voice. When content and voice disagree, misgendering rates soar to 90%, whereas agreement yields only 2% misgendering.