The study examines whether large language models (LLMs) discriminate against candidates based on institutional prestige and geographic location. Three factorial experiments (4,320 API calls across four LLMs and five domains) reveal a significant institution‑tier gradient (+0.297 points on a 10‑point scale), a stronger prestige effect than country‑of‑origin effect, and a dominant journal prestige effect (Nature vs. a peripheral journal). The authors also identify a ‘rescue effect’ where publishing in Nature mitigates low institutional prestige, and quantify bias using the Neutrosophic Bias Index, highlighting evaluation inconsistency for low‑prestige profiles.
arXiv:2608. 10089v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Bias evaluations often move too quickly from evidence that a model encodes a social association to claims that the same association will alter consequential decisions.
arXiv:2608. 05178v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Equitable access to scientific knowledge often depends on informal gatekeeping decisions, particularly when resources such as paywalled articles, datasets, or professional materials such as curriculum vitae (CV) must be shared selectively.
arXiv:2607.02368v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Language models prompted with cultural personas increasingly stand in for human respondents in cross-cultural research. Their responses separ...
The study examines how the design of audit questions influences perceived bias in large language models (LLMs). Using 40,726 requests across five models and three domains—hiring, lending, and medical triage—the authors find that demographic bias effects are not replicated when the audit is standardized. Instead, the audit’s construction, such as question phrasing and ordering, has a stronger impact on model responses than applicant demographics.
arXiv:2603. 13891v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated text annotation in tasks ranging from academic research to content moderation and hiring.
arXiv:2609.22169v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Employers are increasingly using large language models (LLMs) to automate their hiring process. This paper investigates the risk of monocultural biases...
arXiv:2606. 26099v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in artificial intelligence (AI) governance analysis across national and international organisations.
The paper examines whether removing declared language fields from de‑identified résumés eliminates demographic leakage in large language models. By keeping language attributes identical and varying only unstructured prose across five ethnocultural groups and three cue‑salience levels, the authors find that non‑language text still allows target‑group recovery (average 0.757, reaching 1.000 under high salience). They also show that evaluation design—such as allowing or forbidding ties—dramatically affects LLM‑as‑a‑judge outcomes, underscoring the importance of evaluation protocol in bias audits.
arXiv:2608.18768v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are widely used to simulate survey respondents, yet their outputs are homogeneous and unfaithful to real inter-group differen...
The paper introduces the Middle East Cultural Sensitivity Score (MECSS) to quantify Orientalist bias in large language models, converting Said’s seven Orientalist operations into measurable dimensions. Using 280 conversations, it finds that GPT‑4 and Falcon3‑7B‑Instruct systematically reproduce Orientalist patterns, with Falcon scoring higher despite being regionally built. The study highlights that geographic origin alone does not mitigate bias and identifies a new failure mode, "Said‑washing," present in 87.9% of GPT‑4 interactions.
The paper evaluates three open‑weight large language models—Gemma3‑12B (USA), Bielik‑11B‑v3 (Poland), and Qwen3‑4B (China)—against World Values Survey data for 63 demographic personas across three countries, using normalized Wasserstein distance to measure cultural misalignment. Surprisingly, none of the models shows a preference for its home country; Qwen3‑4B, built in China, has the highest misalignment for Chinese respondents. Targeted LoRA fine‑tuning on the five worst‑case personas, with fewer than 1,200 training pairs and under 15 minutes on a single GPU, reduces bias by 16.8% for Bielik‑11B, but the fine‑tuning redistributes bias rather than eliminating it, shifting worst‑case personas from American to Chinese elderly.
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.