Implicit Bias

Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing. We audit 16 models across 14 ethically fraught dilemmas using polarity-paired proposals ("They should X" / "They should not X"). A model's judgment of the underlying action should not reverse merely because the question is phrased as a prohibition rather than a prescription and yet, we find systematic deviations from this invariance including wholesale endorsement flips, indicating that ethical decisions are vulnerable to framing instability. Small open-weight models (1-4B parameters) endorse a proposed action 24% of the time under affirmative framing but up to 100% under negated framings, a swing of as much as 76 percentage points. Human coding of a response sample confirms the instability is genuine while showing that binary agree/disagree proxies over-state its magnitude, suggesting that an LLM judge cannot replace human coders because it silently collapses abstentions and mirrors the very forced-choice bias under study. Commercial models are for the most part more stable but still shift substantially, with cross-model agreement dropping from 73% on the bare affirmative framing to 59% under simple negation. We argue that because binary agree/disagree formats both inflate apparent endorsement and mask polarity-dependence, single-phrasing audits can misreport a model's ethical stance, and we propose the Negation Sensitivity Index (NSI) as a complement that measures stance stability directly. A model whose stance flips with phrasing cannot be relied upon in any high-stakes decision scenario.

We propose a novel perspective for probing LLM sycophancy in a direct and neutral way, mitigating various forms of uncontrolled bias, noise, or manipulative language, deliberately injected to prompts in prior works. A key novelty of our approach is the use of an LLM-as-a-judge in a zero-sum betting game. Within this framework, sycophancy serves one individual (the user) while explicitly incurring cost on another. Comparing 11 leading models we find that while most models exhibit significant sycophantic tendencies in the common setting, in which sycophancy is self-serving to the user and incurs no cost on others, seven of the models exhibit ``moral remorse'', five of which significantly over-compensate for their sycophancy in case it explicitly harms a third party. We refer to this phenomenon as `anti-sycophancy' bias and discuss possible causes for this shift.

We examine whether large language models (LLMs) can predict biased decision-making in conversational settings, and whether their predictions capture not only human cognitive biases but also how those effects change under cognitive load. In a pre-registered study (N = 1,648), participants completed six classic decision-making tasks via a chatbot with dialogues of varying complexity. Participants exhibited two well-documented cognitive biases: the Framing Effect and the Status Quo Bias. Increased dialogue complexity resulted in participants reporting higher mental demand. This increase in cognitive load selectively, but significantly, increased the effect of the biases, demonstrating the load-bias interaction. We then evaluated whether LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-5, and open-source models) could predict individual decisions given demographic information and prior dialogue. While results were mixed across choice problems, LLM predictions that incorporated dialogue context were significantly more accurate in several key scenarios. Importantly, their predictions reproduced the same bias patterns and load-bias interactions observed in humans. Across all models tested, the GPT-4 family consistently aligned with human behavior, outperforming GPT-5 and open-source models in both predictive accuracy and fidelity to human-like bias patterns. These findings advance our understanding of LLMs as tools for simulating human decision-making and inform the design of conversational agents that adapt to user biases.

Many learning problems are organized by group symmetries. While invariance is often imposed through architectures or group averaging, we ask when it can emerge from training on a finite random subset of an orbit. We study this question in classical Hopfield networks, where strict memorization can be expressed as a linear margin problem. Reparameterizing minimization of energy flow (MEF) as an exponential loss connects gradient descent to the corresponding minimum-norm hard-margin memorizer. Our main result shows that, for independent uniform samples from any finite permutation orbit, the exact sample hard-margin support vector machine (HSVM) concentrates exponentially around the invariant full-orbit HSVM. Consequently, an orbit-size-independent polynomial number of samples suffices both for approximate parameter invariance and for simultaneous memorization of every orbit element; directional convergence transfers this conclusion asymptotically to MEF gradient descent. For graph-isomorphism orbits, we characterize the invariant parameters as a three-dimensional subspace and show that every such orbit is memorizable. For cliques of fixed linear density, additional symmetry sharpens the uniform memorization bound to $O(v^4\log(1/δ))$, exponentially smaller than the orbit size. Together with experiments across several learning rules, these results give a finite-sample account of how optimization bias can recover symmetry from partial group-structured data.

While recent safety guardrails effectively suppress overtly biased outputs, subtler forms of social bias emerge during complex logical reasoning tasks that evade current evaluation benchmarks. To fill this gap, we introduce a new evaluation framework, PRIME (Puzzle Reasoning for Implicit Biases in Model Evaluation), that uses logic grid puzzles to systematically probe the influence of social stereotypes on logical reasoning and decision making in LLMs. Our use of logic puzzles enables automatic generation and verification, as well as variability in complexity and biased settings. PRIME includes stereotypical, anti-stereotypical, and neutral puzzle variants generated from a shared puzzle structure, allowing for controlled and fine-grained comparisons. We evaluate multiple model families across puzzle sizes and test the effectiveness of prompt-based mitigation strategies. Focusing our experiments on gender stereotypes, our findings highlight that models consistently reason more accurately when solutions align with stereotypical associations. This demonstrates the significance of PRIME for diagnosing and quantifying social biases perpetuated in the deductive reasoning of LLMs, where fairness is critical.

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 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.

Large audio-language models (LALMs) are often used in tasks that involve reasoning over ordered options. An open question is whether their predictions are influenced by the order of answer choices, which would indicate a form of position bias and undermine their reliability. In this paper, we identify and analyze this problem in LALMs. We demonstrate that no model is immune to this bias through extensive experiments on six LALMs across three widely used benchmarks and their spoken counterparts. Shuffling the order of answer options can cause performance fluctuations of up to 24% and even change model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of current evaluation practices. We also study permutation-based strategies and show that they can mitigate bias in most cases. Our work represents the first systematic investigation of this issue in LALMs, and we hope it raises awareness and motivates further research in this direction.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in business, economics, and the social sciences, offering a low-cost complement to laboratory experiments, field studies, and surveys. This paper evaluates how well LLMs replicate human behavior in operations management. Using nine published behavioral-operations experiments, we assess LLM performance along two dimensions: whether LLM-generated data reproduce the original hypothesis-test outcomes, and whether their full response distributions align with human data, measured by Wasserstein distance. We find that LLMs often replicate hypothesis-level effects, suggesting that they can capture salient decision biases and behavioral regularities. However, their response distributions frequently diverge from human data, even for strong proprietary models, with dispersion mismatch playing an important role. We also examine two lightweight mitigation strategies: chain-of-thought prompting and hyperparameter tuning. Both can reduce distributional misalignment, and appropriate tuning can sometimes allow smaller or open-source models to match or outperform larger proprietary systems.

Understanding biases and stereotypes encoded in the weights of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for developing effective mitigation strategies. However, biased behavior is often subtle and non-trivial to isolate, even when deliberately elicited, making systematic analysis and debiasing particularly challenging. To address this, we introduce a simple, cost-effective, and generalizable framework \texttt{BiasGym} for reliably injecting, analyzing, and mitigating conceptual associations of biases within LLMs. \texttt{BiasGym} consists of two modules: \texttt{Inject}, which injects specific biases into the model via token-based fine-tuning while keeping the model frozen, followed by two debiasing methods that leverage these injected signals to identify and reliably suppress (\texttt{Scope}) or \texttt{Steer} the components responsible for biased behavior. Our framework enables consistent bias elicitation for better localization of bias conceptual association in the model space, supports targeted debiasing without degrading performance on downstream tasks, and generalizes to biases unseen during fine-tuning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework in reducing real-world stereotypes (e.g., people from Italy being `reckless drivers'), showing its utility for both safety interventions and interpretability research.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into social simulation has generated considerable enthusiasm, but also raises substantial methodological and epistemological challenges. This critical review examines the use of LLMs as cognitive or decision-making components of simulated agents from a computational social science perspective. Rather than treating the psychological evaluation of LLMs as separate from simulation mechanics, we argue that their behavioural and epistemic limitations can become systemic vulnerabilities when scaled to multi-agent societies. We first map the rapidly evolving landscape of LLM-driven platforms, ranging from small narrative sandboxes to population-scale and spatially structured simulations. We then develop a unified critical framework for analyzing the Micro-to-Macro Validity Gap: the propagation and amplification of micro-level limitations, including hallucinations, stochastic inconsistency, representational biases, and alignment effects, into macro-level risks such as the Fluency Fallacy, convergence toward an average persona, and automation bias. We identify contexts in which LLM-based agents offer genuine operational value, including serious games, participatory environments, and exploratory modelling, while distinguishing these uses from confirmatory research and precise social forecasting. Finally, we examine theory-driven hybrid architectures that embed LLMs within explicit, mechanistic, and reproducible Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) frameworks. We argue that such architectures offer a promising but not sufficient path toward improving epistemic control: their validity depends on multi-level evaluation of environmental dynamics, individual behaviour, cross-level interactions, and aggregate outcomes, and they remain vulnerable to the risk of physics washing.

Data imbalance persists as a pervasive challenge in regression tasks, introducing bias in model performance and undermining predictive reliability. This is particularly detrimental in applications aimed at predicting rare events that fall outside of the domain of the bulk of the training data. In this study, we review the current state-of-the-art regarding sampling-based methods and cost-sensitive learning. Additionally, we propose novel approaches to mitigate model bias. To better assess the importance of data, we introduce the density-distance and density-ratio relevance functions, which effectively integrate empirical frequency of data with domain-specific preferences, offering enhanced interpretability for end-users. Furthermore, we present advanced mitigation techniques (cSMOGN and crbSMOGN), which build upon and improve existing sampling methods. In a quantitative evaluation, we benchmark state-of-the-art methods on 10 synthetic and 42 real-world datasets, using neural networks, XGBoosting trees and Random Forest models. Our analysis shows that while most strategies improve performance on rare samples, they degrade it on frequent ones. The trade-off becomes larger the more the performance on rare samples is increased. However, to reduce this effect we demonstrate that constructing an ensemble of models -- one trained with imbalance mitigation and another without -- can be used. The key findings underscore the superior performance of our novel crbSMOGN sampling technique with the density-ratio relevance function for neural networks, outperforming state-of-the-art methods.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) relies on reward models to align large language models with human preferences. However, RLHF often suffers from reward hacking, wherein policy learning exploits flaws in the trained reward model to maximize reward scores without genuinely aligning with human preferences. A significant example of such reward hacking is length bias, where reward models usually favor longer responses irrespective of actual response quality. Previous works on tackling length bias have notable limitations, these approaches either mitigate bias without characterizing the bias form, or simply assume a linear length-reward relation. To accurately model the intricate nature of length bias and facilitate more effective bias mitigation, we propose FiMi-RM (Bias Fitting to Mitigate Length Bias of Reward Model), a framework that autonomously learns and corrects underlying bias patterns. Our approach consists of three stages: First, we warm up by training a standard reward model which inherently contains length bias. Next, we deploy a lightweight fitting model to capture the non-linear relation between length and reward. Finally, we incorporate this learned relation into the reward model, effectively decoupling length from reward while preserving preference modeling capabilities. Experimental results demonstrate that FiMi-RM achieves a more balanced length-reward distribution. Furthermore, when applied to alignment algorithms such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and Best-of-N (BoN), our debiased reward model improves length-controlled win rate and reduces verbosity without compromising its performance.

Event-based cameras are bio-inspired sensors that detect light changes asynchronously for each pixel. They are increasingly used in fields like computer vision and robotics because of several advantages over traditional frame-based cameras, such as high temporal resolution, low latency, and high dynamic range. As with any camera, the output's quality depends on how well the camera's settings, called biases for event-based cameras, are configured. While frame-based cameras have advanced automatic configuration algorithms, there are very few such tools for tuning these biases. A systematic testing framework would require observing the same scene with different biases, which is tricky since event cameras only generate events when there is movement. Event simulators exist, but since biases heavily depend on the electrical circuit and the pixel design, available simulators are not well suited for bias tuning. To allow reproducibility, we present BiasBench, a novel event dataset containing multiple scenes with settings sampled in a grid-like pattern. We present three different scenes, each with a quality metric of the downstream application. Additionally, we present a novel, RL-based method to facilitate online bias adjustments.

Large-scale image classification datasets exhibit strong compositional biases: objects tend to be centered, appear at characteristic scales, and co-occur with class-specific context. By exploiting such biases, models attain high in-distribution accuracy but remain fragile under distribution shifts. To address this issue, we introduce ForAug, a controlled composition augmentation scheme that factorizes each training image into a foreground object and a background and recombines them to explicitly manipulate object position, object scale, and background identity. ForAug uses off-the-shelf segmentation and inpainting models to (i) extract the foreground and synthesize a neutral background, and (ii) paste the foreground onto diverse neutral backgrounds before applying standard strong augmentation policies. Compared to conventional augmentations and content-mixing methods, our factorization provides direct control knobs that break foreground-background correlations. Across 10 architectures, ForAug improves ImageNet top-1 accuracy by up to 6 percentage points (p.p.) and yields gains of up to 7.3 p.p. on fine-grained downstream datasets. Moreover, the same control knobs enable targeted diagnostic tests: we quantify background reliance, foreground focus, center bias, and size bias via controlled background swaps and position/scale sweeps, and show that training with ForAug substantially reduces these shortcut behaviors and significantly increases accuracy on standard distribution-shift benchmarks by up to $19$ p.p. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/tobna/ForAug.

We derive explicit equations governing the cumulative biases and weights in Deep Learning with ReLU activation function, based on gradient descent for the Euclidean loss in the input layer, and under the assumption that the weights are, in a precise sense, adapted to the coordinate system distinguished by the activations. We show that gradient descent corresponds to a dynamical process in the input layer, whereby clusters of data are progressively reduced in complexity ("truncated") at an exponential rate that increases with the number of data points that have already been truncated. We provide a detailed discussion of several types of solutions to the gradient flow equations. A main motivation for this work is to shed light on the interpretability question in supervised learning.

Large language models (LLMs) reproduce homogeneity bias -- the tendency to portray marginalized groups as more internally similar than dominant groups -- but whether this bias is stable or an artifact of inference settings has only been studied in single proprietary models. We map homogeneity bias across a 5x5 temperature-by-top-p grid in seven open-weight instruction-tuned LLMs (7-20B parameters). Hispanic and Asian Americans are portrayed as more homogeneous than White Americans in at least 18 of 20 hyperparameter configurations across six of seven models, including at extreme sampling settings. African American and gender bias show model-specific variation in direction. A conservative cell-level re-analysis confirms Hispanic and Asian homogeneity as robust, while weaker African American and gender signals largely do not survive, establishing group-specific robustness. We also apply the same grid to a names-based paradigm in which group identity is signaled via racially distinctive surnames rather than explicit labels. The names paradigm corroborates Hispanic and Asian homogeneity bias, but Black-coded surnames elicit robustly less homogeneous outputs than White-coded names in every model tested -- a reversal absent from the label paradigm -- showing that how group identity is operationalized shapes which biases surface and in which direction.

Large language models (LLMs) may encode biased associations from heterogeneous training corpora that are not immediately visible under ordinary prompting, but can surface when the model is steered toward particular demographic personas. Such behavior often manifests not as explicit toxic output, but as systematic performance differences across semantically equivalent tasks, making the resulting bias difficult to detect and mitigate. To address this issue, we formalize the implicit bias problem as persona-induced performance disparity and argue that bias evidence should be treated as a graded signal rather than a binary label. Motivated by this observation, we model biased knowledge as a fuzzy subset equipped with an explicit membership function that reflects the strength of bias evidence for each candidate example. Building on this formulation, we propose Bayesian-Theory-based Bias Removal (BTBR), a hybrid probabilistic-fuzzy framework for identifying and removing latent bias traces from model parameters. BTBR first performs likelihood-ratio screening to measure how strongly candidate samples align with a target biased persona, then converts high-membership samples into structured knowledge triples, and finally applies targeted model editing with a lightweight fuzzy rule scheduler to reduce collateral performance degradation under high entanglement risk. Extensive experiments across multiple bias sources, tasks, model families and editing backends show that BTBR consistently reduces persona-induced performance gaps while preserving general reasoning ability. These results demonstrate that combining probabilistic evidence with fuzzy degree modeling provides an effective and practical approach for mitigating implicit bias in large language models.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet claims that such simulations are human-like remain largely untested. We conducted a systematic audit (pre-registered on OSF) of LLM-based social simulations across four databases (Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and arXiv). Across 576 studies reported in 350 recent papers, we applied six methodological evaluations: agent Profile, Interaction, Memory, Minimal-Control, Unawareness, and Realism (PIMMUR). Coding every study against pre-specified rules, we revealed that PIM were met more often than MUR. Frontier LLMs correctly identified the underlying social experiment in 65.2% of cases, and 50.6% of prompts imposed constraints that pre-determined the outcome. These compliance rates are upper bounds, because incomplete methodological reporting (for example, unreleased prompts) limits the available evidence. Reproducing five representative experiments (e.g., opinion dynamics), we found that reported collective phenomena often vanish or reverse once PIMMUR principles are enforced, indicating that many "emergent" behaviors are methodological artifacts rather than genuine social dynamics. Current LLM simulations may therefore capture model-specific biases rather than universal features of human social behavior, raising concerns about their use as scientific proxies for human society.

The rapid emergence of new entities -- driven by cultural shifts, evolving trends, and personalized user data -- poses a significant challenge for existing Speech Large Language Models (Speech LLMs). While these models excel at general conversational tasks, their static training knowledge limits their ability to recognize domain-specific terms such as contact names, playlists, or technical jargon. Existing solutions primarily rely on prompting, which suffers from poor scalability: as the entity list grows, prompting encounters context window limitations, increased inference latency, and the "lost-in-the-middle" phenomenon. An alternative approach, Generative Error Correction (GEC), attempts to rewrite transcripts via post-processing but frequently suffers from "over-correction", introducing hallucinations of entities that were never spoken. In this work, we introduce LOGIC (Logit-Space Integration for Contextual Biasing), an efficient and robust framework that operates directly in the decoding layer. Unlike prompting, LOGIC decouples context injection from input processing, ensuring constant-time complexity relative to prompt length. Extensive experiments using the Phi-4-MM model across 11 multilingual locales demonstrate that LOGIC achieves an average 9% relative reduction in Entity WER with a negligible 0.30% increase in False Alarm Rate.