Large language models used as judges for social bias are affected by noisy text, such as typos and broken punctuation. In experiments with 3,822 stereotype-related responses, noise more often turns neutral judgments into biased ones than the reverse, with up to a 120‑fold difference. The effect is strongest at mild realistic noise levels and leads to systematic overestimation of bias, especially in fairness‑critical categories.
The paper introduces GPTBIAS, a framework that uses powerful large language models like GPT‑4 to evaluate bias in other LLMs. It employs specially crafted prompts called Bias Attack Instructions to probe for bias and outputs a bias score along with detailed information such as bias types, affected demographics, keywords, reasons, and improvement suggestions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the framework’s effectiveness and usability.
By Jiaxu Zhao, Meng Fang, Shirui Pan, Wenpeng Yin, Mykola Pechenizkiy
arXiv:2608.29206v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Bias in human-agent interaction can manifest not only through hostile language but also as benevolent bias, whereby unequal treatment hides behind a wa...
By Qianqi Liu, Jin Huang, Fethiye Irmak Dogan, Hatice Gunes
arXiv:2609.00222v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how...
By Daniela Occhipinti, Andrea Piergentili, Marco Guerini
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.
By Ramaravind Kommiya Mothilal, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Raiyan Ahmed, Zhijing Jin, Shion Guha, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed
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.
By Petter T\"ornberg
arXiv:2602. 04306v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, ensuring their fair responses across demographics has become crucial.
By Kahee Lim, Soyeon Kim, Steven Euijong Whang
BiasGym is a cost‑effective, generalizable framework that injects specific biases into large language models via token‑based fine‑tuning while keeping the model frozen. It then uses two debiasing methods—Scope and Steer—to identify and suppress or redirect the components responsible for biased behavior. The framework enables consistent bias elicitation, precise localization of bias associations, and targeted debiasing without harming downstream performance, and it has been shown to reduce real‑world stereotypes such as labeling Italians as reckless drivers.
By Sekh Mainul Islam, Nadav Borenstein, Siddhesh Milind Pawar, Haeun Yu, Arnav Arora, Isabelle Augenstein
The study investigates bias in large language model (LLM) judges by having ten LLMs evaluate narrative constraint selections rather than generated text. Results show that self-preference largely disappears under blind evaluation when quality and evaluator severity are controlled, but self- and other-labels alone shift scores bidirectionally when quality is matched. The authors conclude that authorship attribution drives evaluation bias and that open-ended, ground‑truth‑free tasks can effectively study LLM judge behavior.
By Songeun Chae, Min Kim, Donghoon Jung, Seojin Choi, Seohyon Jung
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it repro...
arXiv:2512. 15792v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly become indispensable tools for acquiring information and supporting human decision-making.
By Xulang Zhang, Rui Mao, Erik Cambria
arXiv:2608. 19670v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) compression reduces deployment costs, but standard aggregate metrics like perplexity and accuracy often mask underlying behavioral shifts.
By Yuan Wu, Mairui Li, Lesia Semenova, Chudi Zhong