Organizations: Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science Indiana University Indianapolis, IN, United States · Department of Statistics and Data Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, United States · Knight Foundation School of Computing and Information Sciences Florida International University Miami, FL, United States
Fairness research on language models involves measuring bias, applying mitigation methods, and examining the evidence on which an evaluation rests. Existing tools offer complementary functionality through different interfaces, so combining them requires reconciling model interfaces, evidence formats, access constraints, and result types before applicability can be checked or methods compared. We introduce FairLMs, a Python library that connects these activities through explicit declarations of model capabilities and input requirements. It provides 33 intrinsic and extrinsic metrics, 14 mitigation components spanning four intervention categories, 14 dataset and scoring-instrument diagnostics, adapters for the three Transformer architectures and supported hosted completion APIs, and benchmark loaders. Declarations are checked before execution and results carry the configuration under which they were obtained, so that compatible components can be combined, methods compared under a common protocol, and workflows extended to new models and datasets. The source code is available at: https://github.com/FairLMs/FairLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the FairLMs design; the dashed arrow marks re-measurement.
As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly deployed across domains, ensuring fairness has become a core challenge. However, the field faces a "Tower of Babel'' dilemma: fairness metrics abound, yet their underlying philosophical assumptions often conflict, hindering unified paradigms-particularly in unified Multimodal Large Language Models (UMLLMs), where biases propagate systemically across tasks. To address this, we introduce the IRIS Benchmark, to our knowledge the first benchmark designed to synchronously evaluate the fairness of both understanding and generation tasks in UMLLMs. Enabled by our demographic classifier, ARES, and four supporting large-scale datasets, the benchmark is designed to normalize and aggregate arbitrary metrics into a high-dimensional "fairness space'', integrating 60 granular metrics across three dimensions-Ideal Fairness, Real-world Fidelity, and Bias Inertia & Steerability (IRIS). Through this benchmark, our evaluation of leading UMLLMs uncovers systemic phenomena such as the "generation gap'', individual inconsistencies like "personality splits'', and the "counter-stereotype reward'', while offering diagnostics to guide the optimization of their fairness capabilities. With its novel and extensible framework, the IRIS benchmark is capable of integrating evolving fairness metrics, ultimately helping to resolve the "Tower of Babel'' impasse. Project Page: https://iris-benchmark-web.vercel.app/
Yiran Zhao, Lu Zhou, Xiaogang Xu +3
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics · Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization · The Chinese University of Hong Kong +2
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit systematic biases across demographic groups. Auditing is proposed as an accountability tool for black-box LLM applications, but suffers from resource-intensive query access. We conceptualise auditing as uncertainty estimation over a target fairness metric and introduce BAFA, the Bounded Active Fairness Auditor for query-efficient auditing of black-box LLMs. BAFA maintains a version space of surrogate models consistent with queried scores and computes uncertainty intervals for fairness metrics (e.g., Δ AUC) via constrained empirical risk minimisation. Active query selection narrows these intervals to reduce estimation error. We evaluate BAFA on two standard fairness dataset case studies: CivilComments and Bias-in-Bios, comparing against stratified sampling, power sampling, and ablations. BAFA achieves target error thresholds with up to 40× fewer queries than stratified sampling (e.g., 144 vs 5,956 queries at ε=0.02 for CivilComments) for tight thresholds, demonstrates substantially better performance over time, and shows lower variance across runs. These results suggest that active sampling can reduce resources needed for independent fairness auditing with LLMs, supporting continuous model evaluations.
David Hartmann, Lena Pohlmann, Lelia Hanslik +3
Weizenbaum Institut Berlin · Technische Universität Berlin · FIZ Karlsruhe +2
Bias audits of multilingual language models usually compare a model's average stereotype score in English with its average in another language and read the difference as a difference in fairness. We ask how much of that difference is noise. Auditing ten open models in eight languages, we measure how far scores move when English test items are merely reworded, test every language shift item by item, and check that the test catches shifts we inject on purpose. In all 70 model-language pairs the stereotype score falls below its English level, and for Hindi, Korean and Swahili the drop clearly exceeds what rewording English produces; most of it comes from StereoSet items. Judging every translation, we find that imperfect ones drop more, but faithful translations alone drop nearly as much. Still, a lower average does not show that a model is fairer. An item's English score predicts its translated score far less well than its reworded score (correlation 0.23, 0.27 on faithful translations, vs. 0.48), while scores stay as far from neutral, models agree on translated items, and within Hindi or Spanish a translated item's score correlates with its own rewording at 0.84 and 0.82. The average cannot distinguish lower bias from a different pattern of item-level scores. We also document three common pipeline errors that silently erase bias signal, and release our code.