A Systematic Investigation of Bias in Large Language Models for Advertising Relevance

Understanding gender biases in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly important as these systems become embedded in decision-support tools with real consequences. Prior research has focused only on a small set of models, leaving open the extent to which gender biases are common and heterogeneous across LLMs. We address this gap across ten models released between April 2025 and June 2026, spanning nine vendors, using two paradigms: gender attribution to stereotyped phrases (Study 1) and moral judgment of abuse or torture against a woman or a man to prevent a catastrophic outcome (Study 2). In Study 1, two of ten models attributed masculine-stereotyped phrases to female writers more often than the reverse, while three models showed the opposite pattern. In Study 2, several models converged on a male-disadvantaging asymmetry that was directionally consistent with a documented human tendency to protect female targets from harm, though the specific conditions under which this asymmetry emerged varied by model; three other models, by contrast, showed no variation across conditions. These results indicate that gender-related biases are common in LLMs. Their direction and magnitude, however, are highly heterogeneous, to the point that some models behave in diametrically opposite ways to others. Bias auditing should therefore be treated as an ongoing, multi-vendor process, rather than a one-time assessment.

Inserting advertisements (ads) into consumer-facing LLM output is emerging as a new business model, but there is little shared evidence on how such ad insertion should be evaluated or how it affects user preferences. We introduce LLMAdBench, a human-preference benchmark for studying advertising in LLM-generated content. The benchmark isolates a simple but practically important decision: given a user conversation, an LLM response, and a matched advertisement, where should the ad be placed? Our dataset compares pairs of responses that differ only in ad position while holding all other conditions fixed including the user query, base answer, advertisement, and disclosure condition. Human annotators evaluate each pair based on six criteria from both advertiser's and user's perspectives. The resulting benchmark contains more than 18000 human judgments across two disclosure conditions: explicitly labeling the ad as sponsored and merging it into the response without disclosure. We use LLMAdBench to evaluate eight frontier LLMs as preference judges and find that they are not reliable substitutes for human evaluation. Even the most stable models reverse roughly one quarter of their decisions when the presentation order is swapped, agreement across models is low, and their placement preferences differ systematically from those of human annotators. Moreover, LLMAdBench contains substantial learnable signal. In particular, a Qwen3-8B model fine-tuned on the human preferences improves substantially over its base model and outperforms all zero-shot frontier judges on the held-out prediction task. Beyond model evaluation, LLMAdBench provides quantitative evidence on the advertiser-user trade-off and shows that the sponsorship disclosure systematically changes users' preference over ad placement.

Whether a language model looks demographically biased can depend on how the audit asks its question. A charitable-aid benchmark reports that the same models favor minority applicants when rating requests one at a time and penalize some when ranking side by side. We test whether that reversal generalizes to hiring, lending, and medical triage: 40,726 requests to five models, applications differing only in the applicant's name, and a primary test fixed before collection. It does not. None of 36 planned contrasts survives correction. The rating advantage keeps its sign at roughly half the published size, and a precision extension bounds any hiring ranking penalty below the published effect, though the lending and triage ranking floors sit above that margin, so the exclusion is conclusive for hiring ranking and for rating in all three domains only. Planted disparities tracking their injected sizes and a directional replication on the original aid materials bound these nulls. The audit is livelier than the demographics: models recognize transparent audits nearly always, tie every identical-content comparison whether the varying detail is race or a hobby, and reward first-listed candidates as much as any demographic effect we measure. Audit verdicts reflect audit construction more than demographic bias.