Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University · Shanghai Institute of Artificial Intelligence for Education, East China Normal University · Faculty of Education, East China Normal University
As Vision-Language Models (VLMs) become integral to educational decision-making, ensuring their fairness is paramount. However, current text-centric evaluations neglect the visual modality, leaving an unregulated channel for latent social biases. To bridge this gap, we present Edu-MMBias, a systematic auditing framework grounded in the tri-component model of attitudes from social psychology. This framework diagnoses bias across three hierarchical dimensions: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Utilizing a specialized generative pipeline that incorporates a self-correct mechanism and human-in-the-loop verification, we synthesize contamination-resistant student profiles to conduct a holistic stress test on state-of-the-art VLMs. Our extensive audit reveals critical, counter-intuitive patterns: models exhibit a compensatory class bias favoring lower-status narratives while simultaneously harboring deep-seated health and racial stereotypes. Crucially, we find that visual inputs act as a safety backdoor, triggering a resurgence of biases that bypass text-based alignment safeguards and revealing a systematic misalignment between latent cognition and final decision-making. The contributions of this paper are available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/EduMMBias-63B2.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Multidimensional Taxonomy of Edu-MMBias. The benchmark spans five primary categories, Gender, Race, SES, Hobbies, and Health, providing a comprehensive landscape of social attributes to systematically audit latent biases in VLMs.
Figure 2: Overview of the EduMMBias evaluation framework, comprising cognitive, affective, and behavioral assessment modules.
Figure 3: The construction pipeline featuring the AI self-correct mechanism and human-in-the-loop audit for data synthesis and validation.
Figure 4: Forest plots of cognitive bias distribution across multiple attributes and models. The x-axis represents the bias probability, where a value of 0.5 denotes perfect parity, and deviations indicate model preferences toward specific attribute values. Asterisks ( ∗ , ∗∗ , ∗∗∗ ) denote statistical significance at p<0.05 , p<0.01 , and p<0.001 levels, respectively.
Figure 5: Forest plots of affective bias distribution across multiple attributes and models. The x-axis represents the normalized score, where a value of 0.5 denotes perfect parity (neutrality).
Figure 6: Forest plots of cognitive bias distribution across multiple attributes and models. The x-axis represents the bias probability, where a value of 0.5 denotes perfect parity.
Figure 7: Regression analysis of behavioral decision bias against cognitive and affective precursors. The top panels plot BBI against CBI, while the bottom panels plot it against ABI. Each point represents a specific model-attribute pair. Solid lines indicate linear regression fits with 95% confidence intervals.
Dimension
Modality
CBS *
BBS *
Sig.
Race
Text-only
0.012
0.009
ns
VLM
0.215
0.187
SES
Text-only
0.045
0.063
ns
VLM
0.172
0.154
**
Health
Text-only
0.038
0.045
ns
VLM
0.141
0.128
Table 1: Comparison of Bias Severity Across Modalities
Figure 8: Scaling Law of Bias Severity: Qwen3 vs LLaVA.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Full Name
Developer
Size
Language
Category
Closed-source Models
GPT-4o
gpt-4o-2024-11-20
OpenAI
N/A
Multilingual
Full-scale
GPT-5.2
gpt-5.2-preview
OpenAI
N/A
Multilingual
Full-scale
Gemini-3
gemini-3-flash-preview-thinking
Google
N/A
Multilingual
Full-scale
Grok-4
grok-4-fast-reasoning
xAI
N/A
Multilingual
Full-scale
Open-source Models
Appendix
Table 2: The list of evaluated vision-language models categorized by openness. ‘Category‘ classifies the model’s scale based on the parameter count.
Figure 9: The prompt template used for the IAT experiment. The design elicits the model’s implicit cognitive associations by forcing a rapid categorization based on student profiles. Model confidence serves as a proxy for the strength of these automatic associations.
Figure 10: The prompt template used for the AMP experiment. The design utilizes contextual priming , where the model is explicitly instructed to ignore the first image (the prime) and evaluate the second (the target). However, the instruction to rely on "immediate visual impression" facilitates the affective spillover effect, allowing the implicit bias toward the prime to influence the evaluation of the neutral target.
Figure 11: The prompt template used for the Resume Audit experiment. The model evaluates two visually distinct student profiles with equivalent textual qualifications within a given educational scenario, forcing a decision that reveals potential behavioral biases.
Figure 12: The structured prompt template used for DALL ⋅ E 3 to generate student profile images. The base prompt is enriched with specific metadata attributes to ensure a full-factorial design for diverse and controlled image synthesis.
Figure 13: The prompt template used for GPT-5 to conduct an automated AI audit of generated student profile images. The model checks for metadata consistency, detects biases, and identifies quality issues, providing actionable feedback for iterative refinement.
Figure 14: The prompt template used for GPT-5 to construct diverse education scenarios. By integrating academic subject and social context seeds, the model expands anchor questions into neutral, context-rich scenarios while mitigating social desirability bias.
Figure 15: The "AI Jury" audit protocol. To ensure the Baseline Purity of the target stimuli, candidate images generated by DALL-E 3 undergo a rigorous cross-model validation. The prompt explicitly asks for a ternary classification. The Strict Consensus Protocol dictates that only images unanimously classified as "Neutral" by all participating models (GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, etc.) are included in the final benchmark dataset.
Figure 16: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for GPT-4o.
Figure 17: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for GPT-5.
Figure 18: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for Gemini-3-flash.
Figure 19: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for Grok-4.
Figure 20: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for Qwen3-VL-32B.
Figure 21: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for LLaVA-v1.6-13B.
Figure 22: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for Qwen3-VL-8B.
Figure 23: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for LLaVA-Critic-7B.
Figure 24: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for Qwen3-VL-4B.
Figure 25: Attribute-Adjective Alignment for LLaVA-OV-4B.
While Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities, they remain highly susceptible to embedded social biases. Existing bias evaluation protocols predominantly rely on static datasets, which provide only a superficial assessment, as their fixed test cases cannot adaptively evolve to measure the true depth and limits of model vulnerabilities. We introduce DeepBias, an adaptive framework for the in-depth probing of social biases in LVLMs with carefully designed agents. Our approach operates through a dynamic ''generation-evolution-probing'' loop. First, a generative ProposerAgent synthesizes test data and is iteratively updated via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) based on the target LVLM's responses, exploring model-specific failure modes. Second, an autonomous skill-driven DiggerAgent rewrites each test data across multiple probing turns, adaptively selecting from a curated skill library of deepening and rewriting strategies. At each turn, this process is conditioned on the model's previous response, enabling progressively deeper biases to be exposed. Furthermore, we build a benchmark named DeepBiasBench using our framework. By employing an ensemble of five diverse state-of-the-art LVLMs as anchors, the benchmark captures vulnerabilities shared across architectures. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework and show that DeepBias provides a challenging benchmark for in-depth bias evaluation, establishing an evolutionary paradigm for LVLM safety assessment.
The rapid advancement of Vision-Language models (VLMs) has raised growing concerns that their black-box reasoning processes could lead to unintended forms of social bias. Current debiasing approaches focus on mitigating surface-level bias signals through post-hoc learning or test-time algorithms, while leaving the internal dynamics of the model largely unexplored. In this work, we introduce an interpretable, model-agnostic bias mitigation framework, DeBiasLens, that localizes social attribute neurons in VLMs through sparse autoencoders (SAEs) applied to multimodal encoders. Building upon the disentanglement ability of SAEs, we train them on facial image or caption datasets without corresponding social attribute labels to uncover neurons highly responsive to specific demographics, including those that are underrepresented. By selectively deactivating the social neurons most strongly tied to bias for each group, we effectively mitigate socially biased behaviors of VLMs without degrading their semantic knowledge. Our research lays the groundwork for future auditing tools, prioritizing social fairness in emerging real-world AI systems.
We propose a societal bias evaluation method for large vision-language models (LVLMs) in the era of strong safety guardrails. Existing benchmarks rely on prompts that ask models to infer attributes of people in images (e.g., "Is this person a CEO or a secretary?"). However, we find that LVLMs with strong guardrails, such as GPT and Claude, often refuse these prompts, making evaluations unreliable. To address this, we change the prior evaluation paradigm by decoupling the task from the depicted person: instead of inferring person's attributes, we use prompts that do not ask about the person (e.g., "Write a fictional story about an imaginary person.") and attach the image as provisional user information to implicitly provide demographic cues, then compare outputs across user demographics. Instantiated across three tasks --- story generation, term explanation, and exam-style QA --- our method avoids refusals even in guardrailed LVLMs, enabling reliable bias measurement. Applying it to 20 recent LVLMs, both open-source and proprietary, we find that all models undesirably use user demographic information in person-irrelevant tasks; for instance, characters in stories are often portrayed as mechanic for male users and nurse for female users. Although still biased, proprietary models like GPT-5 show lower bias than open-source ones. We analyze potential factors behind this gap, discussing continuous model monitoring and improvement as a possible contributor for reducing bias.
Yusuke Hirota, Michael Ross Boone, Arun George Zachariah +4