Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit representational and syntactic biases that are difficult to evaluate due to the stochastic nature of text generation. Standard auditing methods rely on a single output inspection or static automated metrics. These approaches obscure the underlying probability distributions and fail to capture biases hidden in lower-probability generation branches. This paper introduces TreeTracer, a visual analytics tool designed to evaluate LLM bias through aggregated comparison. Using a systematic perturbation analysis pipeline, the tool replaces ontology-defined terms in each input prompt, aggregates hundreds of stochastic generations into a syntax-aligned hierarchical structure, and then performs classification-aware node merging with an auxiliary language model. The resulting structure is visualized through a custom Sankey diagram. By juxtaposing two ontology-driven trees, the workspace enables direct comparison between semantic contexts and supports systematic bias detection. Because any visualization reflects only a subset of the model's learned behavior, the system further applies contrastive inference to compute and directly display counterfactual token probabilities across contexts, reducing the risk of misinterpreting the presence of bias. We validate the workspace through case studies comparing an unaligned baseline model GPT-2 XL against the constitutionally aligned Apertus models. The visual aggregation successfully exposes hidden representational harms, such as counterfactual pronoun suppression and conversational marginalization of individuals. A preliminary user study confirms that the aggregated comparative interface reduces cognitive load and effectively supports analysts in detecting systemic biases.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, accurately evaluating their latent values and biases is critical. The NLP community typically evaluates models using large, unstructured benchmarks. While effective for general capabilities, these datasets fundamentally conflate causal mechanisms: even when an aggregate bias is detected, unstructured evaluations cannot disentangle whether it stems from baseline traits, contextual confounders, or complex interactions. To address this, we introduce an analytically exact framework for the controlled behavioral evaluation of LLMs. We bridge human psychometrics with LLM mechanics by resolving gaps in design, measurement, and analysis. First, we replace unstructured prompting with fully crossed factorial experiments to systematically isolate causal main and interaction effects. Second, we eliminate Monte Carlo text sampling noise by operating directly on exact, token-level Probability Mass Functions (PMFs). Third, we derive a multivariate ordinal consensus metric and a distributional ANOVA to process these PMFs analytically. We validate our framework with a case study on consumer ethnocentrism across five LLMs, demonstrating how our approach isolates systemic country-of-origin biases that aggregate benchmarks otherwise obscure.
Language models deployed in high-stakes roles can potentially favor certain entities, brands, or viewpoints, steering user decisions at scale. Such preferential biases can be introduced by any actor in the model's supply chain and are most dangerous when the model reveals its preference only on the relevant topic while behaving identically to its unmodified base on all other inputs. Recent work has shown that these biases can transfer through context distillation on semantically unrelated data, with the signal residing entirely in the soft logit distribution and remaining invisible to text-based inspection. However, the defender faces a fundamental asymmetry: without knowing the bias topic, no detection method can reliably surface a stealth preferential bias, regardless of whether it examines generated text, internal representations, or model weights. Here we introduce Distill to Detect (D2D), a method that surfaces hidden biases by distilling the distributional shift between a suspected model and its base into a cartridge (a KV-cache prefix adapter), concentrating the dominant divergence and amplifying the bias signal into generated text. We show that D2D successfully amplifies the hidden biases of stealth models to the extent that they can be reliably detected across multiple bias types. We also propose a theoretical framework that explains the efficacy of D2D through the lens of Fisher-weighted projection of the logit distribution shift, supported by empirical observations. By turning the capacity bottleneck of prefix-tuning adapters into a detection tool, D2D provides a practical building block for auditing hidden behaviors in deployed language models.
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.
Robin Staab, Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader +1