arXiv Computation and Language By Jingshen Zhang, Bo Wang, Yanlin Fu, Yuewen Dang, Dongming Zhao, Zifei Yu, Yuexian Hou

Do LLMs Really Lack Difference Awareness? Uncovering Heuristic Substitution in Group-Differentiating Fairness

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) truly lack awareness of meaningful differences between social groups in fairness decisions. It proposes that instead of lacking difference awareness, LLMs often substitute a simpler equal‑treatment heuristic, a phenomenon called Fairness Heuristic Substitution. The authors introduce a Two‑stage Distinguish‑Decide (TDD) framework that separates the identification of relevant group differences from the fairness decision, and show that TDD outperforms one‑stage baselines across multiple benchmarks and models, while also revealing mechanistic evidence for the heuristic substitution hypothesis.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 10

Let's Unlearn Stereotypes Before Decision-Making: Assessing the Impact of Intrinsic Bias Mitigation on Downstream Fairness in LLMs

arXiv:2509. 16462v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes decision-making systems, where biased predictions can reinforce social and economic disparities.

By Mina Arzaghi, Alireza Dehghanpour Farashah, Florian Carichon, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Plante, Golnoosh Farnadi
arXiv AI
Sep 28

Does Thinking Help Fairness? Reasoning Tokens Resolve Some Biases but Create More

The paper investigates whether the reasoning process in large language models mitigates or exacerbates bias. Using a within-model ablation on three high-stakes datasets (Adult, COMPAS, Credit) across three 32‑B models, the authors find that reasoning resolves some counterfactual fairness flips but creates roughly five times as many new flips at high confidence. They introduce two dynamic tools—Counterfactual Depth Probability Gap and Bias Transition Matrix—to trace how bias propagates and amplifies during reasoning depth and to explain the asymmetric dual effect.

By Deng Pan, Joe Germino, Yihong Ma, Elizabeth Daly, Nuno Moniz, Ting Hua, Nitesh Chawla