Demographic Bias in Language Models

Stereotype repositories are critical to assess generative AI model safety, but currently lack adequate global coverage. It is imperative to prioritize targeted expansion, strategically addressing existing deficits, over merely increasing data volume. This work introduces a multilingual stereotype resource covering four sub-Saharan African countries that are severely underrepresented in NLP resources: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa. By utilizing socioculturally-situated, community-engaged methods, including telephonic surveys moderated in native languages, we establish a reproducible methodology that is sensitive to the region's complex linguistic diversity and traditional orality. By deliberately balancing the sample across diverse ethnic and demographic backgrounds, we ensure broad coverage, resulting in a dataset of 3,534 stereotypes in English and 3,206 stereotypes across 15 native languages.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contact-center Quality Assurance (QA) to automate agent performance evaluation and coaching feedback. While LLMs offer unprecedented scalability and speed, their reliance on web-scale training data raises concerns regarding demographic and behavioral biases that may distort workforce assessment. We present a counterfactual fairness evaluation of LLM-based QA systems across 13 dimensions spanning three categories: Identity, Context, and Behavioral Style. Fairness is quantified using the Counterfactual Flip Rate (CFR), the frequency of binary judgment reversals, and the Mean Absolute Score Difference (MASD), the average shift in coaching or confidence scores across counterfactual pairs. Evaluating 18 LLMs on 3,000 real-world contact center transcripts, we find systematic disparities, with CFR ranging from 5.4% to 13.0% and consistent MASD shifts across confidence, positive, and improvement scores. Larger, more strongly aligned models show lower unfairness, though fairness does not track accuracy. Contextual priming of historical performance induces the most severe degradations (CFR up to 16.4%), while implicit linguistic identity cues remain a persistent bias source. Finally, we analyze the efficacy of fairness-aware prompting, finding that explicit instructions yield only modest improvements in evaluative consistency. Our findings underscore the need for standardized fairness auditing pipelines prior to deploying LLMs in high-stakes workforce evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit social biases that reinforce harmful stereotypes, limiting their safe deployment. Most existing debiasing methods adopt a suppressive paradigm by modifying parameters, prompts, or neurons associated with biased behavior; however, such approaches are often brittle, weakly generalizable, data-inefficient, and prone to degrading general capability. We propose KnowBias, a lightweight and conceptually distinct framework that mitigates bias by strengthening, rather than suppressing, neurons encoding bias-knowledge. KnowBias identifies neurons encoding bias knowledge using a small set of bias-knowledge questions via attribution-based analysis, and selectively enhances them at inference time. This design enables strong debiasing while preserving general capabilities, generalizes across bias types and demographics, and is highly data efficient, requiring only a handful of simple yes/no questions and no retraining. Experiments across multiple benchmarks and LLMs demonstrate consistent state-of-the-art debiasing performance with minimal utility degradation. Data and code are available at https://github.com/JP-25/KnowBias.

I demonstrate that large language models can infer ethnicity from names with accuracy exceeding that of Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) without additional training data, enabling inference outside the United States and to contextually appropriate classification categories. Using stratified samples from Florida and North Carolina voter files with self-reported race, LLM-based classification achieves up to 84.7% accuracy, outperforming BISG (68.2%) on balanced samples. I test six models including Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-4o, and open-source alternatives such as DeepSeek v3.2 and GLM-4.7. Enabling extended reasoning can improve accuracy by 1-3 percentage points, though effects vary across contexts; including metadata such as party registration reaches 86.7%. LLM classification also reduces the income bias inherent in BISG, where minorities in wealthier neighborhoods are systematically misclassified as White. I further validate using Lebanese voter registration with religious sect (64.3% accuracy), Indian MPs from reserved constituencies (99.2%), and Indian land records with caste classification (74.0%). Aggregate validation across India, Uganda, Nepal, Armenia, Chile, and Costa Rica using original full-count voter rolls demonstrates that the method recovers known population distributions where naming conventions are distinctive. For large-scale applications, small transformer models fine-tuned on LLM labels exceed BISG accuracy while enabling local deployment at no cost.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly operate in high-stakes settings where demographic attributes such as race and ethnicity may be explicitly stated or implicitly suggested through textual cues. However, existing studies primarily document outcome-level disparities, offering limited insight into internal mechanisms underlying these effects. We present a mechanistic study of how race and ethnicity cues are represented and operationalized within LLMs. Using two publicly available datasets spanning toxicity-related generation and clinical narrative understanding tasks, we analyze three open-source models with a reproducible interpretability pipeline combining probing, neuron-level attribution, and targeted intervention. We find that sensitivity to demographic cues is distributed across internal units and varies substantially across models. These units often align with entangled semantic facets, including explicit group labels, geography, language, culture, and associations related to stereotypes. Interventions on selected units can change some biased prediction patterns, but substantial residual effects remain, suggesting that effective mitigation requires understanding distributed, task-specific mechanisms rather than manipulating a small set of identified neurons alone. Code: https://github.com/LARK-NLP-Lab/LLM-Bias-Interpretability.

Current safety evaluations of large language models (LLMs) create a dangerous illusion of universal protection by aggregating harms under generic categories such as "Identity Hate", obscuring vulnerabilities toward specific populations. In this work, we expose the Selective Safety Trap: a systemic failure mode where models robustly defend specific populations while leaving underrepresented communities highly vulnerable to identical adversarial attacks. To systematically audit this phenomenon, we introduce MiJaBench, a bilingual (English-Portuguese) adversarial benchmark comprising 43,961 controlled jailbreaking prompts across 16 minority groups. By evaluating 14 state-of-the-art LLMs on MiJaBench, we curate 615,454 prompt-response pairs that compose MiJaBench-Align, revealing that safety alignment is not a uniform semantic capability but a demographic hierarchy, with defense rates fluctuating by up to 42% within the same model solely based on the target group. This disparity persists across architectures and languages and is amplified by scaling, indicating that current alignment methods learn group-specific safeguards rather than a generalized notion of harm. Through targeted direct preference optimization (DPO) on a 1B-parameter baseline, we achieve strong zero-shot safety generalizations to entirely unseen demographics and complex attack strategies. We release all datasets and scripts to provide the community with a concrete pathway toward equitable, transferable safety alignment.

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$\times$ fewer queries than stratified sampling (e.g., 144 vs 5,956 queries at $\varepsilon=0.02$ 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.

Accurately predicting mortality risk in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is critical for clinical decision-making. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for clinical prediction using structured medical data, but their outputs may exhibit demographic disparities. Mitigating such disparities without degrading predictive performance remains challenging. We systematically investigate demographic bias in LLM-based ICU mortality prediction and propose Case-Based Prompting (CAP), a training-free framework designed to improve the empirical balance between predictive performance and subgroup fairness. CAP retrieves clinically similar historical misprediction and demographic-sensitive cases with known outcomes and incorporates them as case-level contextual evidence. We further evaluate model discrimination, subgroup fairness, and feature-dependence consistency. On MIMIC-IV, CAP improved AUROC from 0.806 to 0.873 and AUPRC from 0.497 to 0.694 compared with the Baseline Prompt. CAP also reduced several subgroup disparities, particularly for sex and White-Black comparisons, although age-related disparities remained non-negligible. Controlled demographic-information ablations showed that removing demographic information did not uniformly improve both predictive performance and subgroup fairness, indicating distinct performance-fairness patterns rather than a uniform benefit from demographic suppression. Feature-dependence analysis showed generally consistent expressed clinical factor patterns across demographic subgroups. These findings suggest that CAP is a promising inference-time strategy for LLM-based clinical prediction under the evaluated retrospective setting. Further validation across additional LLMs, external datasets, and prospective clinical scenarios is required before deployment.

People use LLMs for reproductive-health questions, including abortion-related support. A response can sound supportive while answers reinforce harmful assumptions: judgment is likely, secrecy is safer, and support is limited. We introduce behavioral coherence evaluation, a design-time method that uses validation evidence from an established instrument to test relations among outputs. Using the Individual Level Abortion Stigma Scale, we prompted five LLMs to complete questionnaires for 627 personas and reviewed flagged patterns with five reproductive-health experts. Models scored personas lower on self-judgment but higher on worries about judgment; most made worries the highest-scoring dimension, although it was lowest in the ILAS reference sample. Four of five models reversed the reference direction by generating significantly higher worries about judgment scores for Black personas. Models defaulted to extreme secrecy after abortion despite varying stigma patterns across personas. Expert review showed that disclosure guidance requires context about relationship safety, legal risk, and trusted support.

As large language models (LLMs) are adopted into frameworks that grant them the capacity to make real decisions, it is increasingly important to ensure that they are unbiased. In this paper, we argue that the predominant approach of simply removing existing biases from models is not enough. Using a paradigm from the psychology literature, we demonstrate that LLMs can spontaneously develop novel social biases about artificial demographic groups even when no inherent differences exist. These biases result in highly stratified task allocations, which are less fair than assignments by human participants and are exacerbated in newer and larger models. In humans, emergent biases like these have been shown to result from exploration-exploitation trade-offs, where the decision-maker explores too little, allowing early observations to strongly influence impressions about entire demographic groups. To alleviate this effect, we explore a series of interventions targeting model inputs, problem structure, and explicit steering. While most interventions have limited effect, explicitly incentivizing exploration robustly reduces stratification, highlighting the need for better multifaceted objectives to mitigate bias. These results reveal that LLMs are not merely passive mirrors of human social biases, but can actively create new ones from experience, raising urgent questions about how these systems will shape societies over time.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly under scrutiny for perpetuating identity-based discrimination in high-stakes domains such as hiring, particularly against people with disabilities (PwD). However, existing research remains largely Western-centric, overlooking how intersecting forms of marginalization--such as gender and caste--shape experiences of PwD in the Global South. We conduct a comprehensive audit of six LLMs across 2,820 hiring scenarios spanning diverse disability, gender, nationality, and caste profiles. To capture subtle intersectional harms and biases, we introduce ABLEIST (Ableism, Inspiration, Superhumanization, and Tokenism), a set of five ableism-specific and three intersectional harm metrics grounded in disability studies literature. Our results reveal significant increases in ABLEIST harms towards disabled candidates--harms that many state-of-the-art models failed to detect. These harms were further amplified by sharp increases in intersectional harms (e.g., Tokenism) for gender and caste-marginalized disabled candidates, highlighting critical blind spots in current safety tools and the need for intersectional safety evaluations of frontier models in high-stakes domains like hiring.

One way social groups are marginalized in discourse is that the narratives told about them often default to a narrow, stereotyped range of topics. In contrast, default groups are allowed the full complexity of human existence. We describe the constrained representations of queer people in LLM generations in terms of harmful representations, narrow representations, and discursive othering and formulate hypotheses to test for these phenomena. Our results show that LLMs are significantly limited in their portrayals of queer personas.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for synthetic tabular data generation through in-context learning (ICL), offering a practical solution for data augmentation in data scarce scenarios. While prior work has shown the potential of LLMs to improve downstream task performance through augmenting underrepresented groups, these benefits often assume access to a subset of unbiased in-context examples, representative of the real dataset. In real-world settings, however, data is frequently noisy and demographically skewed. In this paper, we systematically study how statistical biases within in-context examples propagate to synthetic tabular data, showing that even mild in-context biases lead to global statistical distortions. We further introduce an adversarial scenario where a malicious contributor can inject bias into the synthetic dataset via a subset of in-context examples, ultimately compromising the fairness of downstream classifiers for a targeted and protected subgroup. Finally, we evaluate prompt-side mitigation strategies based on preprocessing in-context examples and instruction-based defenses, demonstrating that while such techniques can attenuate disparity, the inherent sensitivity of LLMs to adversarial prompts remains a persistent challenge. Our findings highlight a critical new vulnerability in LLM-based data generation pipelines within sensitive domains.

Demographics and cultural background of annotators influence the labels they assign in text annotation -- for instance, an elderly woman might find it offensive to read a message addressed to a "bro", but a male teenager might find it appropriate. It is therefore important to acknowledge label variations to not under-represent members of a society. Two research directions developed out of this observation in the context of using large language models (LLM) for data annotations, namely (1) studying biases and inherent knowledge of LLMs and (2) injecting diversity in the output by manipulating the prompt with demographic information. We combine these two strands of research and ask the question to which demographics an LLM resorts to when no demographics is given. To answer this question, we evaluate which attributes of human annotators LLMs inherently mimic. Furthermore, we compare non-demographic conditioned prompts and placebo-conditioned prompts (e.g., "you are an annotator who lives in house number 5") to demographics-conditioned prompts ("You are a 45 year old man and an expert on politeness annotation. How do you rate {instance}"). We study these questions for politeness and offensiveness annotations on the POPQUORN data set, a corpus created in a controlled manner to investigate human label variations based on demographics which has not been used for LLM-based analyses so far. We observe notable influences related to gender, race, and age in demographic prompting, which contrasts with previous studies that found no such effects.

Language Models (LMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite these advancements, LMs can inherit and amplify societal biases related to sensitive attributes such as gender and race, limiting their adoption in real-world applications. Therefore, fairness has been extensively explored in LMs, leading to the proposal of various fairness notions. However, the lack of clear agreement on which fairness definition to apply in specific contexts and the complexity of understanding the distinctions between these definitions can create confusion and impede further progress. To this end, this paper proposes a systematic survey that clarifies the definitions of fairness as they apply to LMs. Specifically, we begin with a brief introduction to LMs and fairness in LMs, followed by a comprehensive, up-to-date overview of existing fairness notions in LMs and the introduction of a novel taxonomy that categorizes these concepts based on their transformer architecture: encoder-only, decoder-only, and encoder-decoder LMs. We further illustrate each definition through experiments, showcasing their practical implications and outcomes. Finally, we discuss current research challenges and open questions, aiming to foster innovative ideas and advance the field. The repository is publicly available online at https://github.com/vanbanTruong/Fairness-in-Large-Language-Models/tree/main/definitions.