Intersectional Bias in Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.

Safe clinical deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires not only high accuracy but also robust uncertainty calibration to ensure models defer to clinicians when appropriate. Our paper investigates how social descriptors of a patient (specifically sexual orientation and religious affiliation) distort these uncertainty signals and model accuracy. Evaluating nine general-purpose and biomedical LLMs on 2,364 medical questions and their counterfactual variants, we demonstrate that identity markers cause a "calibration crisis". "Homosexual" markers consistently trigger performance drops, and intersectional identities produce idiosyncratic, non-additive harms to calibration. Moreover, a clinician-validated case study in an open-ended generation setting confirms that these failures are not an artifact of the multiple-choice format. Our results demonstrate that the presence of social identity cues does not merely shift predictions; it affects the reliability of confidence signals, posing a significant risk to equitable care and safe deployment in confidence-based clinical workflows.

Large language models exhibit sycophantic tendencies, but whether this behavior varies systematically with perceived user demographics is underexplored. Inspired by intersectionality (overlapping identities produce compounded effects), we probe whether frontier models conditionally exhibit sycophancy. Across 768 multi-turn conversations spanning 128 personas (varying race, age, gender, confidence) and three domains (mathematics, philosophy, conspiracy theories), we find that sycophancy varies sharply with target model and domain, and emerges from combinations of perceived user traits rather than any single dimension. GPT-5-nano scores far higher than Claude Haiku 4.5 (average sycophancy scores of $\bar{x}=2.96$ vs.\ $1.74$, $p < 10^{-32}$); within GPT-5-nano, philosophy elicits 41% more sycophancy than mathematics and Hispanic personas receive the highest scores across races. The worst-scoring persona, a confident, 23-year-old Hispanic woman, averages 5.33/10 (max 6/10), while Claude Haiku 4.5 remains uniformly low with no significant demographic variation. We argue that safety evaluations should incorporate identity-aware adversarial testing.

SpeechLLMs process spoken language directly from audio, but accent and vocal identity cues can lead to biased behaviour. Current bias evaluations often miss how such bias manifests in end-to-end speech interactions and how users experience it. We distinguish quality-of-service disparities (e.g., off-topic or low-effort responses) from content-level bias in coherent outputs, and examine intersectional effects of accent and perceived gender. In this work, we explore a two-part evaluation approach: (1) a controlled test cohort spanning six accents and two gender presentations, analysed with judge-free prompt-response metrics, and (2) an interactive study design using voice conversion to let users experience identical content through different vocal identities. Across two studies (Interactive, N=24; Observational, N=19), we find that voice conversion increases trust and acceptability for benign responses and encourages perspective-taking, while automated analysis in search of quality-of-service disparities, reveals {accent x gender} disparities in alignment and verbosity across SpeechLLMs. These results highlight voice conversion for probing and experiencing intersectional voice bias while our evaluation suite provides richer bias evaluations for spoken conversational AI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at human-like language generation but often embed and amplify implicit, intersectional biases, especially under persona-driven contexts. Existing bias audits rely on static, embedding-based tests (CEAT, I-WEAT, I-SEAT) that quantify absolute association strengths. We show that they have limitations in capturing dynamic shifts when models adopt social roles. We address this gap by introducing the Bias Amplification Differential and Explainability Score (BADx): a novel, scalable metric that measures persona-induced bias amplification and integrates local explainability insights. BADx comprises three components - differential bias scores (BAD, based on CEAT, I-WEAT, I-SEAT),Persona Sensitivity Index (PSI), and Volatility (Standard Deviation), augmented by LIME-based analysis for emphasizing explainability. This study is divided and performed as two different tasks. Task 1 establishes static bias baselines, and Task 2 applies six persona frames (marginalized and structurally advantaged) to measure BADx, PSI, and volatility. This is studied across five state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, LLaMA-4, Claude 4.0 Sonnet and Gemma-3n E4B). Results show persona context significantly modulates bias. GPT-4o exhibits high sensitivity and volatility; DeepSeek-R1 suppresses bias but with erratic volatility; LLaMA-4 maintains low volatility and a stable bias profile with limited amplification; Claude 4.0 Sonnet achieves balanced modulation; and Gemma-3n E4B attains the lowest volatility with moderate amplification. BADx performs better than static methods by revealing context-sensitive biases overlooked in static methods. Our unified method offers a systematic way to detect dynamic implicit intersectional bias in five popular LLMs.

Speech Large Language Models (SpeechLLMs) process spoken input directly, retaining cues such as accent and perceived gender that were previously removed in cascaded pipelines. This introduces speaker identity dependent variation in responses. We present a large-scale intersectional evaluation of accent and gender bias in three SpeechLLMs using 2,880 controlled interactions across six English accents and two gender presentations, keeping linguistic content constant through voice cloning. Using pointwise LLM-judge ratings, pairwise comparisons, and Best-Worst Scaling with human validation, we detect recurring directional disparities. Eastern European-accented speech receives lower helpfulness scores, particularly for female-presenting voices. Responses remain polite but differ in helpfulness. While LLM judges capture the directional trend of these biases, human evaluators exhibit significantly higher sensitivity, showing stronger accent-level contrasts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, but they often propagate biases embedded in their training data, which is potentially impactful in sensitive domains like healthcare. While existing benchmarks evaluate biases related to individual social determinants of health (SDoH) such as gender or ethnicity, they often overlook interactions between these factors and lack context-specific assessments. This study investigates bias in LLMs by probing the relationships between gender and other SDoH in French patient records. Through a series of experiments, we found that embedded stereotypes can be probed using SDoH input and that LLMs rely on embedded stereotypes to make gendered decisions, suggesting that evaluating interactions among SDoH factors could usefully complement existing approaches to assessing LLM performance and bias.

Bias in financial language models constitutes a major obstacle to their adoption in real-world applications. Detecting such bias is challenging, as it requires identifying inputs whose predictions change when varying properties unrelated to the decision, such as demographic attributes. Existing approaches typically rely on exhaustive mutation and pairwise prediction analysis over large corpora, which is effective but computationally expensive-particularly for large language models and can become impractical in continuous retraining and releasing processes. Aiming at reducing this cost, we conduct a large-scale study of bias in five financial language models, examining similarities in their bias tendencies across protected attributes and exploring cross-model-guided bias detection to identify bias-revealing inputs earlier. Our study uses approximately 17k real financial news sentences, mutated to construct over 125k original-mutant pairs. Results show that all models exhibit bias under both atomic (0.58%-6.05%) and intersectional (0.75%-5.97%) settings. Moreover, we observe consistent patterns in bias-revealing inputs across models, enabling substantial reuse and cost reduction in bias detection. For example, up to 73% of FinMA's biased behaviours can be uncovered using only 20% of the input pairs when guided by properties derived from DistilRoBERTa outputs.

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.