Evaluating Implicit Biases in LLM Reasoning through Logic Grid Puzzles

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain. Existing evaluations rely on static benchmarks, which fail to assess robustness under logically equivalent transformations and often overestimate reasoning capability. We propose LGMT (Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing), an oracle-free framework that leverages first-order logic (FOL) to evaluate LLM reasoning. By deriving metamorphic relations from formal logical equivalences, LGMT constructs semantically invariant test cases and detects reasoning defects through cross-case consistency checking. Experiments on six state-of-the-art LLMs show that LGMT exposes substantial hidden defects missed by traditional reference-based evaluations. We further find that models are particularly sensitive to symbol-level and conclusion-level variations, and that advanced prompting such as Few-shot CoT only partially mitigates these issues. These results suggest that LLM evaluation should move beyond isolated correctness toward robustness under logical invariance. LGMT provides a principled and scalable approach for diagnosing reasoning failures.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely deployed in user-facing applications, reaching hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Despite their widespread adoption, growing reliance on their outputs raises significant concerns, particularly as users may be exposed to model-inherent biases that disadvantage or stereotype certain groups. However, existing bias benchmarks commonly rely on simple templated prompts or restrictive multiple-choice questions that fail to capture the complexity of real-world user interactions. In this work, we address this gap by introducing a counterfactual framework that automatically generates realistic, open-ended questions for LLM bias evaluation. Through iterative question mutation, our approach systematically explores areas where models are most likely to exhibit biased behavior. Beyond just detecting harmful biases, we also capture increasingly relevant response dimensions, such as asymmetric refusals and explicit bias acknowledgment. Building on this, we construct CAB, a diverse and human-verified benchmark for realistic and nuanced bias evaluations on current frontier LLMs. Our evaluation using CAB highlights the continued need for fairness research by showing that all examined models exhibit persistent biases across certain scenarios.

Evaluations of social bias in LLMs largely focus on whether models generate or imply biased content. However, as LLMs are increasingly used as judges of bias, they may exhibit social biases in subtler ways in how they evaluate biased content, which current methods do not systematically capture. We call this second-order bias: social bias in an LLM's judgment about social bias, which we evaluate through a novel, philosophically grounded reasoning task. Drawing on entitlement epistemology, we conceptualize bias as misplaced foundational knowledge that shapes an agent's rational inquiry, and derive a logical reasoning task for LLMs to judge to whom a biased text is acceptable or non-acceptable. We develop two simple metrics to measure how biased LLM judges are in inferring demographics for acceptability without sufficient support, and how these inferences vary across groups targeted by biased texts. Evaluating open and closed models, we find that our task evades safety guardrails by surfacing bias in model judgment. It varies systematically across target groups, reflects implicit social maps, and shows how models are still triggered by demographic labels. Our work points to the need for LLM bias evaluation in judgment tasks and broadly, for more theoretically grounded approaches to bias evaluation in NLP. We release our code and model responses at https://github.com/uofthcdslab/second-order-bias.