arXiv AI
Gender bias across LLMs is common and highly heterogeneous
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
4d ago
Gender bias across LLMs is common and highly heterogenous
arXiv:2609.38036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding gender biases in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly important as these systems become embedded in decision-support tools with...
arXiv AI
Sep 1
Man Made Language Models? Evaluating LLMs' Perpetuation of Masculine Generics Bias
arXiv:2502.10577v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Instruct-based large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and even amplify gender bias when prompted with contextually constra...
arXiv AI
Aug 5
Unequal Verdicts: Investigating Gender Bias in LLM-Based Fake News Detection
arXiv:2608. 03627v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored.
arXiv AI
Aug 3
FairFund-Bench: Evaluating Distributive Bias in LLM Resource Allocation
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 14
BiasLab: A Multilingual Dual-Framing Framework for LLM Bias Measurement, Applied to Workplace and HR Contexts
arXiv:2601. 06861v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background: Large language models (LLMs) harbor systematic biases that are particularly consequential in workplace and HR contexts, where their outputs increasingly influence hiring, job design, and organizational decisions.
arXiv AI
Sep 17
Linguistic Triggers of Gender and Racial Bias in Open-Weight LLMs Applied to Recruitment
The paper reports the first systematic audit of open‑weight large language models (LLMs) in hiring contexts, examining how job‑posting language influences recruiter and job‑seeker simulations across six models. It finds that agentic language lowers recruiter scores for female candidates while communal language mitigates this effect, and that coded‑exclusion language sharply reduces recruiter scores for non‑White candidates and discourages non‑White personas from applying. The study also identifies the explicit demographic label as the main causal factor and proposes a concrete pre‑deployment audit protocol aligned with EU and U.S. regulatory requirements.