Guardrail-Agnostic Societal Bias Evaluation in Large Vision-Language Models

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.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Large Language Models increasingly suppress biased outputs when demographic identity is stated explicitly, yet may still exhibit implicit biases when identity is conveyed indirectly. Existing benchmarks use name based proxies to detect implicit biases, which carry weak associations with many social demographics and cannot extend to dimensions like age or socioeconomic status. We introduce ImplicitBBQ, a QA benchmark that evaluates implicit bias through characteristic based cues, demographically associated attributes that signal implicitly, across age, gender, region, religion, caste, and socioeconomic status. Evaluating 11 models, we find that implicit bias in ambiguous contexts is over six times higher than explicit bias in open weight models. Notably, this bias is distributed unevenly across demographics: caste emerges as the most severe while gender is the least affected. Safety prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning fail to substantially close this gap; even few-shot prompting, which reduces implicit bias by 79%, leaves caste bias at four times the level of any other dimension. These findings indicate that current alignment and prompting strategies address the surface of bias evaluation while leaving demographically associated stereotypic associations largely unresolved. We publicly release our code and dataset for model providers and researchers to benchmark potential mitigation techniques.