arXiv:2608. 14161v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs exhibit social biases that can produce inaccurate and discriminatory inferences, posing risks in high-stakes applications.
By Varsha Ramineni, Hossein A. Rahmani, Jerome Ramos, Karin Sevegnani, Emine Yilmaz
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
As Large Language Models are increasingly deployed in critical applications, robustly evaluating their social biases is paramount. However, the current literature suffers from widespread methodological fragmentation, which yields contradictory conclusions.
arXiv:2502. 11603v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong natural language understanding capabilities but also inherit and amplify societal biases, particularly gender bias, raising fairness concerns.
By Hongye Qiu, Yue Xu, Yi Wang, Meikang Qiu, Wenjie Wang
The paper introduces an adaptive triggering mechanism for bias correction in large language model (LLM) reasoning. By framing bias intervention as an online change‑point detection problem, the authors update a CUSUM statistic at each step using either a white‑box next‑token probability signal or a black‑box LLM judge signal, and inject corrective prompts only when the accumulated evidence exceeds a calibrated threshold. Experiments on gpt‑4o‑mini and six open‑weight models show that adaptive black‑box triggering restores most of the accuracy lost by fixed‑interval interventions while reducing the number of corrections, whereas the white‑box signal improves ambiguous‑item accuracy but can hurt disambiguated‑item accuracy due to difficulty distinguishing stereotype reliance from correct evidence.
By Nayoung Kim, Mickey Mancenido, Huan Liu
The paper investigates whether reasoning representations—explanations for large language model outputs—aid humans in evaluating those outputs. A controlled human study tested six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, measuring structural understanding, error detection, and trust calibration. Results revealed a mismatch: participants favored planning- and decomposition-based representations, yet simpler chain-of-thought traces better supported verification, trust, and interpretability, while preferred formats increased calibration risks.
By Jaewoo Lim, Sungbok Shin, Sanghyun Hong