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...
The paper investigates which demographic attributes large language models (LLMs) default to when annotating text without explicit demographic cues. By comparing non‑demographic, placebo‑conditioned, and demographic‑conditioned prompts on politeness and offensiveness tasks in the POPQUORN dataset, the authors find that LLMs exhibit notable gender, race, and age influences in their annotations. This contrasts with earlier studies that reported no such effects, highlighting the importance of considering demographic bias in LLM‑based annotation workflows.
The study investigates how socio-demographic data can improve pluralistic offensiveness modeling. It finds that demographic information yields modest, inconsistent gains for individual predictions but clearer benefits at group and population levels due to aggregation. By explicitly reasoning about baseline judgments and demographic-specific deviations, the authors show that both components improve predictions, and that reasoning outperforms simple conditioning on 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.
The paper examines how large language models (LLMs) respond to different demographic cues—such as names—when users seek advice, focusing on race and gender in a U.S. context. It finds that using different cues for the same group leads to only partially overlapping changes in model responses, producing inconsistent conclusions about personalization and unstable bias metrics. The authors argue that LLMs react to linguistic signals tied to cues rather than to stable demographic categories, and they call for evaluations that use multiple cues and consider underlying mechanisms.
arXiv:2609.16993v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models are now common in student assessment, but we know little about how student demographics affect their use. Sometimes, considerin...
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.
arXiv:2610.22545v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Stereotypes are subjective constructs that are mediated by the cultural context in which they are viewed. Successfully modeling them thus also requires...
The paper introduces Population Fidelity, an evaluation framework for assessing how well large language models (LLMs) represent human population attitudes. It focuses on three dimensions: group-level accuracy, between-group variation, and the structure of that variation. Using the framework, the authors replicate a prior study on machine bias and test cultural fine-tuning, finding that while fine-tuning improves overall alignment, it does not enhance representation of within-population differences.
arXiv:2501. 02211v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) reproduce homogeneity bias -- the tendency to portray marginalized groups as more internally similar than dominant groups -- but whether this bias is stable or an artifact of inference settings has only been studied in single proprietary models.
The study investigates how gender assignments of candidates and evaluators influence decisions made by large language models (LLMs) in a city council voting scenario. Eight LLM-as-a-Judge and decision language models evaluated 240 synthetic professional narratives, producing 30,720 judgments. Results show that explicit candidate gender labels slightly increased the probability of a Yes vote, only nonbinary evaluator assignments had a significant effect, and decision reversals varied across models, with decision language models exhibiting fewer reversals than LLM-as-a-Judge models.
arXiv:2604.20677v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive settings, raising concerns about fairness and bias, particularly when...