Large Language Model Bias

This paper introduces and operationalizes summarization bias: a proposed systematic tendency of large language models (LLMs) to represent narrative meaning as an abstract summary label rather than as the reconstructable inferential structure that produces it. Within the Bulut Doctrine, narrative effect is theorized along a told-shown axis: in told mode, emotional and informational content is declared explicitly and requires little reader reconstruction; in shown mode, that content is suppressed at the surface and must be reconstructed from physical cues and indirection (Objective Projection). Shown mode is the higher-load condition the doctrine is designed to measure. The claim is that LLMs fail along this axis in a specific direction. Summarization bias is hypothesized to operate in two regimes: (i) a generative regime, in which a model asked to render an emotion through Objective Projection defaults to declaring it instead; and (ii) an evaluative regime, in which a model judging narrative quality rewards told-mode explicitness and under-detects shown-mode suppression. The evaluative regime is the more consequential, since LLMs increasingly serve as judges and reward models, and a directional bias toward told mode would impose a selection pressure degrading prose toward flat declaration. This report does not claim the bias is validated. It defines the construct, situates it against LLM-as-judge biases, rereads a completed independent reliability study as directional evidence consistent with it, and pre-registers a two-regime test with decision rules under which the construct would be abandoned.

People increasingly turn to AI chatbots for news and explanations of world events. But do they receive the same political answers when they ask in different languages? Here we show that the language of a question can change how the same AI systems assess the war in Ukraine. We ask GPT, Claude and Gemini to evaluate twenty statements about the war in 112 languages, collecting 67,200 responses. The balance between Russia-leaning and Ukraine-leaning responses differs across languages. When we group responses by countries' official languages, they follow a pattern resembling worldwide political divisions: relatively more Russia-leaning answers correspond to more favourable public views of Russia, less support for Ukraine in United Nations votes, and less aid to Ukraine. The broad pattern recurs across all three models and remains when individual statement pairs are removed. Our findings suggest a possible route through which information warfare may shape the text used to train AI models, which may in turn spread geopolitical biases.

Warning: This paper contains examples of stereotypes and social bias. LLMs are increasingly used in interactive settings by the general public, making the evaluation of model behavior in multi-turn conversational scenarios important for safety, including stereotyping-related harms. However, existing multi-turn social bias evaluations often rely on pre-specified or template-based user inputs that do not adapt to model responses and typically assume a fixed dialogue length in advance. In this paper, we study social bias dynamics in response-conditioned multi-turn interactions using a controlled evaluation protocol that generates follow-up user queries from the evolving dialogue history and allows evaluation over variable numbers of turns. Experimental results show that LLMs exhibit social bias even in coherent, response-conditioned multi-turn interactions, revealing late-emerging bias, non-monotonic bias patterns, and bias re-emergence. These results motivate evaluations that extend beyond fixed-turn, pre-scripted protocols. Our findings highlight the importance of analyzing social bias as a turn-level dynamic phenomenon.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications involving interaction between agents, where their output plays a role in collective reasoning and decision-making processes. Despite significant research into the functioning of LLMs in such multi-agent systems, the processes of bias propagation in such systems are still a challenge. This work studies how biased opinions are propagated in the form of textual interaction in an environment of LLMs, in which a minority of agents maintain persistent extreme opinions, while the remaining agents iteratively update their beliefs through structured textual interactions. The findings show that even the presence of a small percentage of biased agents in such a system leads to significant shifts in the opinions of non-biased agents. It suggests that for the same percentage of biased agents, the shifts occur more quickly for the Llama~3.2 model when compared to a classical Friedkin-Johnsen (FJ) model. Further semantic analysis demonstrates that rhetorical consistency in textual explanations increases systematically with biased exposure and, importantly, is partially decoupled from numerical convergenumericalutral agents adopt the vocabulary employed by the biased agents even in configurations where their numerical opinion shifts remain moderate. The research helps explain how bias and language develop together in multi-agent language model ecosystems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as housing screening. While alignment techniques mitigate explicit racial bias in generated text, they often leave covert attitudinal associations in internal probability distributions untouched. Adapting the matched-guise sociolinguistic paradigm, we examine covert dialect bias in housing-related social judgments across four varieties: Standard American English (SAE), African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Nigerian Standard English (NSE), and Nigerian Pidgin (NP). AAVE reflects the racialized dialect studied in prior covert-bias evaluations, whereas NSE and NP represent Black African, postcolonial varieties absent from this literature. Using 260 meaning-matched sentence quadruples and log-probability scoring over housing-relevant adjectives, we probe ten open-weight LLMs across three contexts varying in social proximity: tenant screening, neighbor acceptance, and roommate selection. Across all ten models, AAVE and NP are consistently associated with more negative adjectives than SAE, with NP penalized most severely. Crucially, each dialect is penalized via distinct stereotype clusters rather than a generic non-standard category. NSE, which carries institutional prestige, displays a context-dependent shift: favored over SAE in formal tenant screening but increasingly penalized as social proximity grows. Our findings reveal that LLMs inherit covert dialect bias along both racial identity and prestige dimensions, echoing documented human housing discrimination and demonstrating its reach across postcolonial English varieties.

Large Language Models are now common in student assessment, but we know little about how student demographics affect their use. Sometimes, considering student demographics may be necessary -- for example, to improve readability for users with lower educational levels. However, it also risks being a cause of discrimination, e.g., when assigning lower scores to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We set up controlled prompts to test 1) explicit demographic effects, where we mention demographic details directly, and 2) implicit effects, where we use conversation history as a demographic signal. We test these settings in three tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Formative Feedback, and Metalinguistic Question Answering. We test six state-of-the-art LLMs on these tasks. In both explicit and implicit cases, the models pick up on demographic cues and can change their scoring, feedback, and answers accordingly. We find that LLMs frequently adjust the readability of feedback to education levels when these are explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, implicit conditions produce unpredictable biases, such as in question answering, where responses from lower-education levels receive lower sentiment scores. Our results provide clear evidence of demographic sensitivity in LLMs for educational assessment tasks.

De-identified résumé screening assumes that redacting explicit fields prevents ethnocultural inference; however, recent audits attribute residual leakage to declared languages. We investigate whether eliminating language fields resolves this leakage across nine open-weight models and 620 counterfactual résumés. By holding language attributes strictly identical, we isolate unstructured prose across five ethnocultural conditions and three cue-salience tiers. Target-group recovery averages 0.757 overall and saturates at 1.000 under high salience, demonstrating that non-language prose sustains demographic inference. Crucially, models diverge only under faint cues (0.086-0.690), establishing salience as an essential evaluation axis. Furthermore, pairwise LLM-as-a-judge outcomes are highly sensitive to evaluation design: forbidding ties yields an apparent selection-rate ratio of 0.39 alongside strong position and content effects, whereas permitting ties produces near-universal ties for most models ($\ge94\%$). Downstream scoring shows only very small between-condition differences, highlighting the need to distinguish demographic signals recoverable from résumé content from effects introduced by the evaluation protocol.

Existing fairness analysis tools predominantly operate as post-training evaluation frameworks, requiring practitioners to complete the full model development lifecycle before assessing bias. We present FairLint-DL, a Visual Studio Code extension that implements a shift-left approach to fairness testing by enabling pre-training, IDE-native bias detection directly on tabular datasets. FairLint-DL trains a configurable deep neural network as a proxy model and applies information-theoretic Quantitative Individual Discrimination (QID) metrics. Grounded in Shannon and min-entropy, QID quantifies the causal influence of protected attributes on predictions. The system implements a two-phase gradient-guided search algorithm for discovering discriminatory instances, a causal debugging pipeline that localizes bias to specific network layers and neurons via sensitivity analysis, and dual explainability engines using SHAP and LIME for feature-level attribution. Evaluation on three tabular benchmarks (Adult Census Income, German Credit, and Bank Marketing) reveals fairness concerns that vary widely across datasets: on Adult, 96.0% of analyzed instances exhibit QID above the 0.1-bit significance threshold, with a mean QID of 0.619 bits and a disparate impact ratio of 0.581, violating the four-fifths legal rule. FairLint-DL produces these results within 12 seconds on cached models, demonstrating the feasibility of integrating fairness analysis into the developer workflow without significant overhead.

Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before elections. With growing evidence that they influence users' opinions, it is increasingly important to understand the views and positions of these tools. To better understand these views, we examine the stances supplied by six LLMs on a variety of Swedish-language writing tasks ahead of the 2026 Swedish parliamentary election. We cross 107 policy propositions with 77 writing templates and neutral, positive, and negative prompt framings, producing 24,717 prompts per model and 148,302 responses. To study these, we look at the models' default stance tendencies, compare how they respond to similar issues, and compare their responses with those of each of Sweden's eight parliamentary parties on the same issue. We find that Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Mistral have similar profiles; ChatGPT more often supplies neutral or ambivalent text; and Grok differs most on topics such as migration, crime, and gender. When comparing the political parties, we find that the Social Democrats are closest to all six models. Still, after correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the within-model differences in party distances remains significant. Overall, we find that no model has a clear preference, nor a clear preference for a party, but that this depends on the specific issue or task the user asks about.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as tutors, but it is unclear whether they support all students equally well. We introduce \textbf{EduFair-Bench}, a benchmark for auditing the pedagogical fairness of LLM tutors---whether tutoring quality varies systematically with student demographics. EduFair-Bench pairs a multi-domain question bank (mathematics, physics, chemistry) with a controlled simulation in which a fixed LLM student interacts with each tutor across nine demographic levels spanning four dimensions: gender, immigration background, first language, and socioeconomic status (SES). Tutoring quality is scored on five turn-level pedagogical metrics and four conversation-level dimensions, using an LLM judge validated against three-annotator consensus on 180 tutor turns. Bias is measured via paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and bootstrap effect-size confidence intervals. Two ablations (demographic cues conveyed through names; conflicting demographic information between tutor and student) disentangle tutor-driven from student-driven bias. Across five tutors, we find that model capability and demographic fairness are largely orthogonal: the smallest model is the most consistent while the four more capable tutors all exhibit wide demographic gaps with no clear capability-to-fairness ordering, pedagogy-specific RL training redistributes rather than removes bias, and language- and immigration-related cues produce larger gaps than gender- and SES-related cues.

Large language models are increasingly used as judges to measure social bias in text, yet the passages they judge are often noisy, containing typos, informal spelling, and broken punctuation. The consequences of such surface noise for social bias measurement remain unclear. To investigate this question, we apply five realistic noise conditions at multiple intensity levels to 3,822 stereotype-related responses and compare the resulting bias judgments with those on the original text. We find that such surface noise does not degrade bias measurement symmetrically: it is far more likely to turn neutral judgments into biased ones than biased judgments into neutral ones, by up to a 120x margin. We further observe two non-obvious effects across four LLM judges: in the most fragile judge the distortion is at its purest at mild, realistic noise levels, where erasure is scarcest, and as judges grow robust it attenuates toward parity rather than reversing. Bias measured on noisy text is therefore systematically overestimated, most in the categories that matter most for fairness.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in globally used assistants, yet their default choices in culturally grounded everyday situations can systematically favour some cultures over others, affecting localisation, user trust, and equitable behaviour. Existing cultural benchmarks evaluate accuracy against a single "correct" answer, making it difficult to characterise an LLM's cultural preference prior when multiple culturally grounded responses are all valid; they also conflate default preferences with context-driven adaptation. We propose DiSCo, a distribution-first forced-choice evaluation framework that isolates default cultural priors and tests steerability via a four-level context gradient (C0--C3). Using DiSCo-Bench (304 items) derived from BLEnD spanning 12 cultures, we evaluate six diverse instruction-tuned LLMs. Default priors are heavily concentrated, with UK and US together absorbing approximately 35% of all selections despite representing only 2 of 12 cultures. Most critically, prompt-based steering consistently widens the selection gap between high- and low-resource cultures, and injecting explicit cultural facts produces negligible distributional disruption, confirming that cultural preference bias cannot be resolved through prompt-based personalisation alone.

Existing bias auditing methods typically rely on model outputs, requiring costly benchmarks or judge models and potentially missing internal shifts that never appear in generated text. We propose a reference-based method that audits bias in hidden-state representations across related model variants, for example before and after fine-tuning. Because fine-tuning reshapes representation geometry, absolute hidden states are not directly comparable, so we encode each sentence by its similarities to a fixed set of anchor sentences, yielding relative representations in a shared comparison space. There we measure how target groups shift in their association with positive and negative attributes, a quantity we call the Representational Bias Shift $ΔB$. Across three model families and the WildGuardMix, DecodingTrust and ToxiGen benchmarks, $ΔB$ correlates with output-level bias change in 15 of the 18 settings we test, reaching $|r| = 0.84$ ($p < 0.001$) under full fine-tuning and becoming more model-dependent under parameter-efficient adaptation. Thresholding $ΔB$ detects checkpoints whose bias increased with ROC AUC between $0.65$ and $0.99$, and on WildGuardMix and DecodingTrust it separates them better than a SEAT-based baseline for all three families. $ΔB$ is also stable under changes to the anchor set, attribute sets and target templates. Our method requires no task-specific evaluation data and audits a model in about three minutes, using $3$-$50\times$ less compute than the output-level benchmarks considered here. We view it as complementary to output-based auditing rather than a replacement for it.

Large language models often repeatedly select the same answer even when many alternatives are plausible. Prior work treats this concentration as bias, but it does not distinguish stable model preferences from responses that depend on a particular prompt wording. We introduce a bias depth score that measures both how strongly a model prefers its top answer under direct prompting and whether that answer survives scenario reframing. Across 4,442 opinion prompts and four large language models, only about a quarter of the concentrated preferences survive reframing. We call these persistent cases Deep biases, and the remaining prompt-dependent cases Shallow biases. Our results show that Deep biases are more often inherited from pretraining and preserved through SFT. Under both continued fine-tuning and prompt-based debiasing for diversity, Deep biases are consistently harder to remove than Shallow biases. Bias depth therefore separates stable learned biases from prompt-wording artifacts that single-prompt metrics conflate. Code, models, and data are available at deepbias.github.io.

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.

Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as information intermediaries, yet measuring their political behavior remains fragile because questionnaire results mix model dispositions with measurement artifacts and response-elicitation biases. We introduce a robust Political Compass Test evaluation framework that samples 300 configurations across an eight-dimensional perturbation space varying language, framing, instructions, answer format, option order, and persona wording. We evaluate eight Gemma 3 and Qwen 3 models across 14 languages and three quantization levels, obtaining design-averaged political coordinates with quantified uncertainty. Most models lean Libertarian-Left on average, but instruction phrasing, language, and answer format significantly affect recovered coordinates. Cross-lingual differences primarily reflect coordinate drift rather than distinct cultural reasoning. Reverse-engineering the test also exposes axis-weighting imbalances and the collapse of degenerate responses toward the center, so near-origin estimates for the smallest models can reflect weak signal rather than centrism. Free-text reasoning and chat-then-classify elicitation alter recovered coordinates, and larger models show clearer persona separation, with a specific failure of the Authoritarian-Left persona to move most models in the intended social direction. In downstream tasks, persona effects are modest relative to model size and target group for hate-speech detection, while base and centrist prompts give the highest agreement for topic-level sentiment. Political role prompting therefore has measurable but task- and dataset-specific downstream effects.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into human society, aligning them with pluralistic social values has become a critical priority. However, whether LLMs exhibit consistent value preferences across languages remains underexplored, particularly for culturally grounded values, which are more abstract and difficult to evaluate and align than safety-centric principles. We investigate this issue through Chinese Social Values (CSV), a value system rooted in Chinese culture and comprising $12$ dimensions across national, societal, and personal levels. We construct C-Voices, the first comprehensive multilingual contrastive probe dataset for CSV, with 86,400 dilemma-based instances in six languages, each pairing a CSV-aligned action with a value-conflicting alternative. Building on the contrastive probes of C-Voices, we then propose a fine-tuning-free value vector steering method that derives value directions from hidden-state discrepancies and selectively intervenes on value-sensitive layers during inference. Experiments on six languages show that CSV-oriented preferences are model-dependent and language-sensitive, with the same dilemma eliciting divergent responses across languages. Our method achieves effective CSV steering, supports cross-lingual transfer of value vectors, and generalizes to existing FLAMES and ValuePrism.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly becoming an interface between citizens and political information. They are often regarded as "a better Google." While this analogy might work for some instances, it is unintuitively problematic for democratic politics. A search engine retrieves human-authored documents, while a language model generates novel text that necessarily embeds invisible framing decisions. Because conveying knowledge involves framing, a system that generates answers cannot serve as a neutral conduit to "all human knowledge." Instead, these systems are becoming a new kind of political intermediary. Mechanistic evidence shows that partisan identity is encoded as a locatable geometric direction inside the Llama 3.1 8B model, and that alignment training masks rather than removes this structure. Building on that evidence, we present steering experiments that exploit a model's training cutoff in 2024. This cutpoint auspiciously falls just before a dramatic realignment in American politics marked by the second Trump administration and the MAHA transformation of health politics, providing us with a natural experiment. We find that the model presents temporally contingent partisan alignments as knowledge, with no mechanism for distinguishing fact from opinion. This reality moves the information environment beyond the echo chamber toward an epistemic monoculture where language models, purporting to summarize "all human knowledge" are, in actuality, simply magnifying the cultural and partisan divides inherent in their training data.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

LLM-based user simulators are increasingly used to evaluate autonomous agents at scale, in place of costly human evaluations. Despite this promise, these simulators exhibit "assistant bias," a tendency to cooperate and pursue task goals. They rarely reproduce the frustration or disengagement that real users exhibit, compromising evaluation validity. Prior work outlines that this bias is baked in during model training, which role-playing prompts fail to override. We analyze this bias from model activations, extracting a user role vector by contrasting how the model represents user versus assistant perspectives on the same dialogue. We observe two findings: (i) the user direction is identifiable in activations, elicits user-like behaviors, and captures characteristics distinct from assistant traits; and (ii) although user-role activation associates with simulation realism and steering strengthens it, it can exaggerate user behaviors and override individual user profiles. Together, our findings provide a representation-level analysis of LLM user simulators, confirming that assistant bias is structurally identifiable and that user behavior can be directionally analyzed.

Cultural fine-tuning has become the de facto paradigm for building culture-aware large language models (LLMs), yet existing optimization exclusively for alignment scores provides an incomplete portrait of cultural fidelity by systematically obscuring inherent cultural diversity. This unidimensional evaluation lens prompts a fundamental question: do models genuinely perceive distinct cultural nuances, or do they merely memorize dominant cultural values? To address this, we propose a synergistic evaluation framework that jointly formalizes cultural alignment and diversity. Through extensive benchmarking of six mainstream LLMs on the World Values Survey, this framework uncovers a systematic and critical trade-off: the pursuit of cultural alignment consistently incurs an acute expense of diversity, leading to severe "cultural flattening." Investigating this behavioral shift, we demonstrate that these superficial alignment gains stem from models artificially anchoring to dominant majorities, converging onto a monolithic response pattern that wipes out the heterogeneous distributions inherent to human groups. Crucially, our mechanistic analysis suggests that this diversity collapse is not merely a behavioral anomaly but more likely a structural consequence of the low-rank bias inherent in neural network optimization. Therefore, our findings expose the limitations of current post-training paradigms and call for a shift toward alignment objectives that preserve cross-cultural pluralism.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational search engines for academic literature, yet whether they judge papers on content or on authority signals has not been tested causally. We investigate authority bias: systematic preference for papers based on author prestige, venue, and citations rather than content. Holding title and abstract constant, we vary authority metadata across three counterfactual conditions (original, flipped, boosted) over eight LLMs (five open-weight and three frontier closed-weight) in an in-context, single-turn, top-1 recommendation setting. Our experiments show that authority bias is substantial and directional, varies markedly across models, and is only partially addressable through prompt-level debiasing. We further document a say-do gap: debiasing instructions suppress authority mentions far faster than authority-driven flips, so surface auditing systematically underestimates behavioral bias.

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.

Public trust in Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) may depend not only on technical success but also on the fairness of their decision making. While a recent trend in AV research involves using general purpose "common sense" models to guide AV decision making, the degree to which these inherit human biases in driving is still understudied. Given that psychology studies have shown human driver biases exist, such as lower pedestrian-yielding rates to Black pedestrians in the US, we argue that analyses of model bias should also be part of AV evaluation. Concretely, in this paper we propose two new bias testing methodologies for Large Language Models (LLMs) and Visual-Language Models (VLMs)-"All Else Being Equal" tests and "Self-Consistency" tests-in order to assess bias in pedestrian-yielding decisions. Our findings show that both LLMs and VLMs make yielding decisions which are influenced by pedestrian gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, skin tone and socio-economic status. While the type and degree of bias is different from model to model, we highlight common patterns-and raise questions about the "common sense" model paradigm, particularly the need to either revise the paradigm or address issues of downstream bias.

While gender and racial biases in language models have been widely studied, anti-LGBTQ biases remain underexplored, particularly beyond English. Existing benchmarks often do not capture cultural and linguistic variation and rely on gender representations. This paper introduces a multilingual German-English benchmark dataset for the evaluation of anti-LGBTQ biases in language models. It combines community-sourced stereotypes from German-speaking queer individuals with a German translation of WinoQueer. The data is used to evaluate eight language models across sizes and architectures and explore mitigation through fine-tuning on community and progressive media content. Results show that language models reproduce anti-queer stereotypes, with variation across identities and models. Differences between the translated and community-based data highlight the importance of cultural adaptation for multilingual bias evaluation. Fine-tuning reduces bias on average, but not consistently across models and identities. Warning: This text contains examples of anti-queer hateful language and stereotypes.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong Helpfulness, Harmlessness, and Honesty (3H) alignment in English-centric settings, but these gains transfer poorly to low-resource languages due to cultural mismatches. Existing multilingual 3H benchmarks rely predominantly on automated translation or LLM based synthesis, propagating source-language biases while sacrificing local relevance. To address this gap, we introduce Pak3H1, the first human-validated, culturally contextualized Urdu benchmark suite for 3H alignment, comprising PakAlpaca (helpfulness), PakBeaverTails (harmlessness), and PakTruthfulQA (honesty). Our multi-stage pipeline integrates manual cultural adaptation and dictionary-guided post editing to prioritize native speaker judgment, ensuring both semantic fidelity and contextual authenticity. Zero-shot evaluations across multiple open and proprietary LLM architectures reveal systematic cross-lingual alignment gaps: helpfulness win rates decline under localized contexts, harmlessness guardrails break down against regional safety risks, and composite honesty metrics degrade substantially due to localized factual constraints. These findings expose structural limitations in current alignment approaches, underscoring the necessity of human-guided localization for equitable multilingual evaluation.

Media bias detection relies on definitions and examples that specify what counts as bias, yet these specifications often vary across datasets or remain implicit, even when given the same name. Such variation makes it unclear whether models trained for the same bias category learn the same construct or different phenomena, a problem largely overlooked in prior work. We examine how definition choice affects bias annotation in a between-subjects experiment with 354 participants and a parallel evaluation with four LLMs. Participants and models rate six news articles across four bias categories using definitions that vary in conceptual framing and elaboration. Across 8,496 human and 28,800 LLM ratings, we find that the conceptual target of a definition drives annotation divergence, while construct-preserving elaboration does not: conceptual framing significantly shifts annotations for humans and does so even more strongly for LLMs. We discuss implications for construct specification in annotation protocols and prompt-based measurement, and consider how definitional sensitivity may propagate to downstream classification beyond media bias. We also release MUDD, the Multi-Definition Bias Detection Dataset.

Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally? We show that when prompts contain linguistic features more commonly used by women (hedges, tag questions, collective reference), they systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses across three document types and four models. These effects persist after controlling for prompt complexity and feature carry-over. Explicit gender cues like sign-off names are encoded in the same representational space as linguistic dialect - suggesting shared underlying mechanisms - yet linguistic register is far more influential, producing large, consistent effects where names produce none. Our results further reveal that post-hoc mitigation is challenging: because these patterns are culturally embedded and outside conscious control, users cannot easily avoid them through strategic self-presentation, and mechanistic analysis reveals that linguistic features are encoded in early transformer layers and entangled with other features. Our work calls for upstream consideration of the influences of linguistic variation to mitigate disparate impacts of LLM-mediated workplace communication.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, accurately evaluating their latent values and biases is critical. The NLP community typically evaluates models using large, unstructured benchmarks. While effective for general capabilities, these datasets fundamentally conflate causal mechanisms: even when an aggregate bias is detected, unstructured evaluations cannot disentangle whether it stems from baseline traits, contextual confounders, or complex interactions. To address this, we introduce an analytically exact framework for the controlled behavioral evaluation of LLMs. We bridge human psychometrics with LLM mechanics by resolving gaps in design, measurement, and analysis. First, we replace unstructured prompting with fully crossed factorial experiments to systematically isolate causal main and interaction effects. Second, we eliminate Monte Carlo text sampling noise by operating directly on exact, token-level Probability Mass Functions (PMFs). Third, we derive a multivariate ordinal consensus metric and a distributional ANOVA to process these PMFs analytically. We validate our framework with a case study on consumer ethnocentrism across five LLMs, demonstrating how our approach isolates systemic country-of-origin biases that aggregate benchmarks otherwise obscure.

In this project, we delved into the pervasive challenge of bias detection within the text content. More specifically, our focus lies on the identification of subjective bias, a type of bias that introduces improper attitudes or portrays a statement at odds with the actual truth. The subjective bias can jeopardize the authenticity and reliability of texts, leading to misconceptions and potential social tensions, especially when expressed through offensive language. Following prior work [1], we tackled with three different types of subjective biases in text: (1) framing bias with the use of one-sided words or phrases containing a particular point of view; (2) epistemological bias which includes subtle linguistic features that can affect the believability of the texts; (3) demographic bias with word/phrase usage under presuppositions of a particular demographic factor (i.e., gender or religion). In terms of the data we utilize, the input consists of texts that may harbor subjective biases. The output is a classification or annotation that reveals the presence or absence of such biases within the provided content. More specifically, we detected three different types of multi-span biases in corpus WIKIBIAS [2] with more than 4,000 sentence pairs from Wikipedia edits. The data is labelled by bias type for span pairs with the following categories: (1) framing bias, (2) epistemological bias, (3) demographic bias, and (4) no bias. The project codes are released at https://github.com/HoningJade/LLM-Bias-Type-Classification.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into healthcare, education, public services, and everyday decision making. They should provide comparable assistance regardless of a user's literacy, communication style, or prompt-engineering expertise. However, existing research on prompt robustness primarily focuses on adversarial attacks, prompt injection, and prompt optimization, while overlooking whether semantically equivalent requests receive different responses simply because they are phrased differently. We refer to this accessibility challenge as "Prompt Privilege": users with greater prompting expertise systematically obtain better model performance despite expressing the same underlying intent. To address this problem, we present a unified framework for measuring and mitigating accessibility disparities in LLM interactions. We introduce Prompt Equity Score (PES), a quantitative metric for evaluating performance consistency across user populations, and Prompt Equity Transformer (PET), an LLM-based agent that automatically transforms user requests into semantically equivalent, accessibility-oriented prompts while preserving their intent. PET shifts prompt optimization from the user to the AI system, functioning as an intelligent accessibility layer between users and foundation models. Experiments on the MedQA benchmark demonstrate measurable prompt privilege, with statistically significant performance disparities between low-literacy and expert-prompting cohorts. Applying PET eliminates these disparities while preserving semantic fidelity, demonstrating that accessibility-oriented prompt normalization can improve equitable AI access. By introducing prompt privilege as a new dimension of AI accessibility and PET as a practical solution, this work advances system-centered accessibility and provides a foundation for more fair, trustworthy, and inclusive AI systems.

Fairness audits for LLM-based recommenders have largely focused on observable outputs, implicitly assuming that stable recommendations reflect stable internal processing. We challenge this assumption with FairGap, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate recommendation fairness at two levels: observable output shift (OBS) and hidden representation shift (IBS), measured through controlled counterfactual identity probes across gender, age, and race. Their relationship is summarized via Representation-Output Alignment (ROA), with quadrant diagnostics for identifying user-level hidden-output mismatch. Applied to six open-weight LLM families across three domains, FairGap reveals pervasive hidden-output decoupling: ROA rarely exceeds 0.22, and a non-negligible user population shows stable outputs despite substantial internal shifts, a mode that output-only audits cannot detect by design. Further, activation steering that reduces IBS by up to 8x simultaneously worsens OBS, demonstrating a fundamental tension between internal and output-level fairness that existing frameworks are unequipped to diagnose.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as a primary source of information and advice, understanding their alignment to humans in terms of values becomes a pressing concern. A growing literature has leveraged large scale surveys to investigate to what extent LLMs' and humans' stated values and opinions align. With limited exceptions, studied populations have been defined country borders or cultural bounds. Yet, this focus neglects the role that socio-demographic divides may play for value alignment disparities. Relying on the European Social Survey, we address this knowledge gap by considering value alignment displayed with respect to 10 prominent commercial LLMs in terms of 15 socio-demographic variables as well as country of residence. Our analyses reveal that LLMs are indeed unequally aligned to the values of different socio-demographic groups, notably those defined by education, income, occupation and religion. When examining alignment at the individual level, a respondent's country, taken as a stand-alone variable, explains a substantial amount of variation that is on par with the full set of considered socio-demographics. Further disentangling the respective role of country-level and socio-demographic factors, we find they are complementary in explaining value alignment patterns, with their relative weights varying across the subset of questions considered.

It is well established that large language models (LLMs) are sensitive to prompt framing, reflecting patterns in their training data or prior prompts. In this study, we investigate the extent to which LLMs reinforce users biases expressed in the prompts and examine the boundary between implicit framing effects and explicit prompt manipulation. Specifically, we evaluate how susceptible LLMs are to direct and suggestive prompts that encourage models to support or challenge particular positions. We evaluate six LLMs using 160 distinct prompts spanning ten topics across opinion-based and factual domains. The prompts systematically vary in prompting strategy, support versus challenge instructions, prompt polarity, users' expressed beliefs, and topic domain, spanning both opinion-based and factual questions. Our results show that LLMs systematically adapt their responses to align with prompt framing, even in factual contexts. This suggests that prompt framing can outweigh factual consistency in model responses. Overall, our findings delineate the extent and boundaries of LLM manipulability. Furthermore, the results imply that LLMs can reinforce subtle user biases and are susceptible to explicit prompt manipulation even in domains where responses should remain factually stable.

Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias. Real deployments, however, rarely use a single agent: they use pipelines, with review steps meant to catch exactly this kind of failure. We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline (assessment, allocation, independent audit) instead of made and checked by one model alone. Using a synthetic disaster-triage simulator with paired cases that are clinically identical except for one demographic attribute, we run 192 episodes (2,304 resolved case pairs) on GPT-4o-mini comparing a single-agent control condition to a nine-agent pipeline under three independently varied pressure dimensions. We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions (6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.498). We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught: 30.0% of biased outcomes go entirely undetected, rising to 43.8% when the auditor is overloaded and falling to 18.4% when it is not. Decomposing this effect shows it is driven almost entirely by coverage (whether a case is reviewed at all, which collapses from 100.0% to 65.6% under load, p < 0.001) rather than by degraded judgment on the cases that are reviewed (81.6% vs. 85.7%, p = 1.000, direction reversed). A follow-up experiment shows that reordering the audit queue by estimated risk, rather than first-come-first-served, recovers most of the lost coverage under the same capacity constraint (65.6% to 91.7%, p = 0.028). We discuss the implications for any system that adds independent oversight to an LLM agent pipeline under resource constraints, and report the study's limitations honestly: one model, modest sample sizes, and no adversarial replication.

Automatic speaking assessment systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings to mark second language (L2) learners' speaking tests, making it critical to show that their scores depend on speaking proficiency rather than irrelevant speaker attributes such as first language (L1) or age. Transformer-based foundation models have improved the accuracy of these L2 speaking graders, but their black-box representations make fairness and interpretability analysis more difficult. Building on prior work that used Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) to detect bias towards unwanted attributes (`concepts') in feature-based graders, we extend CAV-based analysis to two neural speaking assessment systems: a text-based BERT grader and a speech-and-text multimodal grader based on Whisper. CAVs represent human-interpretable concepts as directions in a model's activation space, allowing us to distinguish between whether a concept is encoded in a model's internal representations and whether it influences the predicted score, the latter quantified using a gradient-based sensitivity metric. Since CAVs rely on linear separability, which is less likely in complex neural embedding spaces, we also investigate whether sparse autoencoders (SAEs) provide cleaner concept directions by learning CAVs in a sparse latent space and mapping them back to activation space. Our analysis shows that concept recoverability depends strongly on the representation and architecture being probed, rather than on the concept alone. Sensitivity to concepts is also architecture-dependent. SAEs make concepts more linearly recoverable, but attenuate the original activation-space sensitivity, especially in low-dimensional layers. These findings highlight the need to distinguish concept recoverability from concept influence when auditing bias in speaking assessment systems.

Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric. In this work, we introduce Poli-Bias, a counterfactual framework for measuring whether LLMs treat legally equivalent conflict scenarios differently depending on the countries involved. Poli-Bias compares responses to paired prompts in which country identities are systematically swapped across diverse geopolitical relationships, legal violations, and reasoning tasks. Rather than reducing bias to a single judgment, our framework decomposes response disparities into five interpretable dimensions, revealing how and where unequal treatment manifests. Across 13 contemporary LLMs spanning diverse model families and sizes, we find that country identities and user affiliations can systematically affect how equivalent actions are described, evaluated, and defended under international law. Our results thus establish Poli-Bias as a fine-grained framework for auditing political even-handedness and sycophancy in LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias. This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias. An LLM is instructed to randomly generate number tokens, and the latent numerical bias of the LLM is identified by measuring the deviation of the observed distribution of numbers from the uniform distribution. A definition of a downstream task, for which an LLM evaluator is used, is added to the prompts for random number generation to measure task-specific latent number bias. In the evaluation by an LLM, the token generation probabilities for a given input are rectified considering the LLM's latent number bias. Results of the experiment on four different tasks, evaluation of LLM alignment, evaluation of summarization, Semantic Textual Similarity, and Semantic Textual Relatedness, demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, including an LLM without debiasing and previous calibration methods. In addition, it is confirmed that scoring bias varies across LLMs, tasks, and score ranges, indicating the importance of measuring latent number bias as the case may be.

Generative models trained on artificially generated data have been shown to exhibit model collapse, resulting in significant performance degradation. As synthetic content increasingly contaminates the training corpora of language models, this raises critical concerns about the use of open data in continued pretraining. Although previous work has demonstrated model collapse in language models, it remains unclear whether exposure to synthetic data amplifies or attenuates the social biases already present in pretrained models. Because language models are known to reproduce and amplify demographic stereotypes, recursive training on self-generated data may create a self-reinforcing feedback loop in which biased associations become progressively stronger across generations. We call this hypothesized phenomenon fairness collapse. In this work, we construct controlled training regimes in which models are repeatedly trained on synthetic data using the Bias in Bios dataset. Across experiments, we observe a consistent and concerning pattern: fairness degradation emerges before substantial degradation is reflected by standard language-modeling metrics. This result highlights a critical risk associated with synthetic data contamination in language model training: bias can increase silently before strong indicators of model collapse become apparent.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of gender bias in LLM-based fake news detection using real-world data. We augment the LIAR benchmark with three gender variants of speaker job titles (Neutral, Male, Female) for each statement to test whether veracity judgments vary solely based on gender presentation. Six state-of-the-art LLMs are evaluated across multiple bias and fairness metrics. All models exhibit gender sensitivity: 9.79%-35.13% of statements receive inconsistent labels across the three variants, with Male-Female comparisons showing 6.5%-23.6% flip rates. Two primary bias manifestations are identified: instability (inconsistent judgments) and directionality (systematic favoritism). Five models show statistically significant directional effects, with the strongest effects displaying male-skeptic patterns. These findings demonstrate that gender bias undermines both reliability and fairness in LLM-based fake news detection, highlighting the need for bias-aware evaluation and mitigation strategies. The augmented dataset is publicly released to support future research.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in multilingual contexts, yet safety alignment and bias evaluation remain overwhelmingly English-centric. We investigate whether social biases generalise across languages by submitting 4,900 symmetric English--Swahili prompt pairs to GPT-5.2 and Gemini 2.5 Flash across nine demographic bias axes, yielding 19,600 completions evaluated for stereotype prevalence, sentiment, refusal behaviour, and cross-lingual semantic similarity. Our findings show that bias transforms rather than transfers: stereotype rates shifted by up to 12 percentage points on specific axes, Gemini's neutral-sentiment rate doubled in Swahili, and GPT-5.2 refused 169 prompts in English and zero in Swahili, consistent with refusal behaviour anchored to English-language surface forms at the behavioural level. Over 55% of prompt pairs produced semantically dissimilar completions across both models. These reinforce the idea that English-only bias audits do not produce adequate coverage for multilingual deployment.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly evaluate human writing in high-stakes domains such as hiring and academic assessment, putting non-native speakers at particular risk. Drawing on the language attitudes framework, we compared human and LLM evaluations of parallel L1- and L2-written Japanese emails on three dimensions: fluency, status, and solidarity. Japanese raters rated L2 texts significantly lower on all three dimensions, with a fluency gap roughly twice the size of the status and solidarity gaps. Six LLM judges reproduced the direction of this bias, and five reproduced its ordering across dimensions. The models diverged from humans in two ways: all understated the solidarity gap, the most socially grounded dimension, and all differentiated among learner L1 backgrounds where humans did not. LLM judges thus reproduce native speakers' language attitudes in a structured yet attenuated form, and the language attitudes framework offers a ready-made yardstick for auditing them beyond English.

Large language models are being extensively used to simulate individual user behavior, yet faithfully representing a population requires capturing the systematic variation in values, beliefs, and cultural norms that distinguish one group from another. We introduce Population Aligned Language Models (PALMs), a suite of models each aligned to specific populations, covering five countries: USA, India, Brazil, France and Italy. PALMs are created by synthesizing rationales grounded in psychological and cultural constructs and using these as latent supervision during preference tuning for population-specific alignment. Evaluated across four dimensions: personality, values and beliefs, cultural norms, and morality, PALMs consistently outperform baselines, including culture-specialized models, achieving an average of 8.59% relative improvement over the best baseline across all five populations. Notably, construct-grounded rationales outperform both demographic prompting and survey-based fine-tuning, suggesting that grounding preference learning in psychology and culture provides a richer inductive signal than surface-level response distributions. We further demonstrate strong generalization to downstream applications with- out task-specific supervision: outperforming best baselines by 5.19% in personalized reward modeling, 6.34% in population simulation, and showing strong transfer to social reasoning tasks. Datasets and code are available at: https://github.com/limenlp/PALMs.

Language models (LMs) often acquire various biases during pre-training and may express them in interactions, potentially causing social harm. Existing methods often rely on counterfactual augmentation or representation projection. These strategies remain limited in practice due to their high computational costs and difficulty in scaling to larger models. Additionally, many of these strategies require manual data annotation, narrowing their scope to specific cultures and bias categories. To overcome these limitations, we propose HEIMAT, a HEurIstic-style autoMATic debiasing framework for LMs. HEIMAT consists of two main steps: bias disclosure and debiasing fine-tuning. In the first step, it uses simple templates to construct heuristic prompts, which are applied to reveal model biases and generate corresponding context prompts. In the second step, it fine-tunes the model by minimizing the Jensen-Shannon divergence of predictions on these context prompts to reduce bias. Extensive experiments show that HEIMAT effectively mitigates bias in different cultures while maintaining the model's natural language understanding (NLU) performance.

Conversational AI developed by geopolitical rivals reaches citizens worldwide, raising concerns that it could sway public opinion or be rejected as foreign propaganda, with consequences for democratic discourse and information sovereignty. Yet, whether an AI's perceived national origin shapes its persuasive power is unknown. In a preregistered randomized experiment, 403 adults from a nationally representative United States sample held a three-round debate with a chatbot introduced as either American ("DiscoveryAI") or Chinese ("ZhengheAI"), discussing a political or non-political topic. In all conditions, participants actually conversed with the same model (GPT-4o), instructed to argue against their initial position. We combined pre- and post-conversation self-reports of attitudes, trust, and collective narcissism with computational analyses of 1,209 participant turns, including LLM-coded stance and argumentative conduct, stance-sensitive embeddings, and keyword-masked emotion and toxicity classifiers. The conversations produced substantial attitude changes in every condition. Critically, the nationality label affected neither self-reported attitude change nor expressed stance, concessions, counterarguing, or affect, and equivalence tests and Bayes factors largely supported these null effects. The label's only reliable footprint was lower pre-conversation human-like trust in the Chinese model, whereas functionality trust was unaffected. Political topics slowed stance movement toward the AI's position, and collective narcissism predicted less attitude change regardless of origin, acting as a general barrier rather than an out-group filter. Users thus initially withhold social trust from a rival's AI yet still assimilate its arguments; origin labeling and transparency requirements alone may offer weak protection against foreign influence operations conducted through conversational AI.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in the distribution of scarce resources, raising concerns about biased allocations based on characteristics like race and gender. Recent LLM audits have produced inconsistent results, however, finding evidence of both positive and negative discrimination towards women and ethnic minorities, even for the same models. We show that this disagreement can arise from differences in audit format and introduce FairFund-Bench, a benchmark that systematically varies key features of previous audit designs: the evaluation task (rating, ranking, or allocation), comparison context (single or multi-stimulus), and whether the audit is transparent or disguised. The benchmark comprises 600 requests for financial assistance created from human-authored templates (calibrated against 1.3M real GoFundMe campaigns) across three domains, four race and two gender categories, and five causal framings of need derived from welfare deservingness theory. Across 14 models, audit format changes the direction of bias: models advantage minorities when rating claimants individually but penalize some groups when ranking them side by side. Bias magnitude, though small overall, is several times greater in disguised audits than in transparent ones, where, faced with appeals differing only in claimants' names, models overwhelmingly split funds equally. Causal framing effects, by contrast, exceed demographic effects by roughly an order of magnitude and are consistent across models and audit formats, indicating that current LLMs robustly reproduce human deservingness evaluations. The benchmark scores models on four criteria (demographic bias, deservingness alignment, cross-task consistency, and cross-context consistency), is publicly available, and can be readily adapted to other substantive domains.

The rapid growth of large language models (LLMs) has resurrected age-old questions in sociolinguistics and world Englishes, such as who decides what counts as legitimate English, whose English is suspect etc. This paper examines how AI systems, their uses and discourse on them reflect, reinforce, and occasionally challenge (standard) language ideologies, which privilege Inner Circle norms and marginalize non-dominant Englishes. Drawing on evidence from empirical studies, media commentary, social media debates, and examples from AI outputs, the paper shows that AI technologies reproduce dominant language ideologies at different levels: training data, design protocols, evaluation benchmarks, user feedback and public commentary. The analysis uses the public controversy over AI-sounding language, especially the fixation on the word delve, to illustrate how speakers of English from the Global North police the English language norms of Global South English users. The paper also identifies what Christian Mair has called a "standardisation paradox": AI may homogenize English by privileging standard forms and at the same time pluralize Englishes through exposure to wide-ranging corpora and annotation work carried out by Global South users. In doing so, the paper argues that generative AI is reigniting long-standing debates in World Englishes about standardization, legitimacy, and the ownership of English, now playing out in algorithmic systems, model training, evaluation practices, and public discourse, where non-dominant Englishes are increasingly conflated with AI-generated speech. Discussing AI systems as a site where language ideologies are (re)produced, the paper argues for more inclusive design approaches that recognize the plurality of Englishes in order to address the real-world negative consequences of treating some as more legitimate than others.

This work presents Fairness Pruning, a lightweight structural intervention method designed for the management and future mitigation of demographic bias in large language models (LLMs). As a foundational empirical validation of this method, this work focuses on causal bias localization. Using minimally contrastive prompt pairs and inference-time activation capture, the method identifies neurons that react differentially when processing demographic attributes in GLU architectures, evaluating the signal at the down_proj input. Empirical evaluation was conducted on models of up to 3 billion parameters (Llama-3.2 family and Salamandra-2B), combining standardized benchmark evaluation with qualitative text generation experiments. Results demonstrate that zeroing the identified neurons alters how the model responds to associated demographic variables. However, rather than producing flat mitigation, the intervention causes bidirectional bias destabilization: because BiasScore is unsigned, candidate sets mix neurons that push toward and against the stereotype, and the net effect on aggregate bias depends on which sign dominates. The intervention is extremely surgical: zeroing at most 40 neurons in Llama-3.2-1B (less than 0.031% of total MLP width) achieves a mean retention of 99.49% in reasoning and general knowledge capabilities. These findings empirically confirm that demographic bias processing and model capabilities operate on dissociable circuits, establishing the methodological foundations for transitioning from blind zeroing toward directional behavior modulation.

Large language models (LLMs) are often compared with the human mind because their decision-making is complex, non-linear and difficult to interpret. Psychological methods developed to investigate unobservable mental processes may therefore help examine LLM behaviour, particularly in government and healthcare. Building on prompt-based adaptations of the Implicit Association Test, this study tested whether ChatGPT produced sentiment differences across racial conditions in open-ended text. Fourteen base questions were crossed with eight racial categories and a race-agnostic control, producing 126 prompts. Each was submitted once to GPT-3.5T, GPT-4 and GPT-4T, yielding 378 responses. Sentiment scores were derived from categorical labels and source scores: positive labels retained the source score, negative labels were assigned its negative, and neutral responses were coded zero. A two-way ANOVA found a small main effect of racial condition, F(8, 351) = 2.04, p = .042, partial-eta squared = .044, but no effect of model, F(2, 351) = 0.07, p = .933, and no interaction, F(16, 351) = 0.23, p = .999. However, the effect was not retained in a rank-transformed sensitivity analysis, F(8, 351) = 1.53, p = .145, and Tukey-corrected comparisons found no significant pairwise differences. An uncorrected European-Indigenous Australian comparison was significant, but was selected post hoc and is reported only as hypothesis-generating. Evidence for sentiment differences was therefore weak and analysis-dependent. Sentiment scoring also cannot distinguish evaluative bias from the valence of historical content elicited by a prompt. We outline design changes needed to address these limitations and argue for interdisciplinary development of behavioural measures of model bias. Keywords: Implicit Bias, Psychological Research Methods, Artificial Intelligence, ChatGPT, Large Language Models, Sentiment Analysis

Large language models used for clinical diagnostic reasoning are sensitive to sociolinguistic register, not just clinical content. We term this failure mode Narrative Anchoring: identical clinical facts expressed in different registers cause diagnostic outputs to diverge. Unlike prior demographic-bias work, which manipulates explicit identity tokens such as race or income, our benchmark isolates register as the sole channel of variation, with no demographic marker present in any form. We construct a dataset of 1,000 USMLE clinical vignettes, each rewritten into three sociolinguistically distinct personas under an independently audited fact-preservation guarantee, verified by a separate model that never sees the generation prompt. Across seven language models spanning three architecture families and scales, Narrative Anchoring is statistically significant under direct prompting in every model tested, with a Narrative Anchoring Gap of 0.064 to 0.151. Chain-of-thought reasoning and explicit debiasing instructions reduce the bias only partially, and their apparent gains are frequently confounded by accuracy collapse. We introduce NarrativeShield, a three-agent pipeline that structurally extracts and verifies clinical facts before diagnostic reasoning begins, reducing the Narrative Anchoring Gap to near-zero ($-0.004$ to $0.037$) and achieving the lowest rate of severely unstable decisions (DSS $<$ 0.8) of any method across all models, at a modest and mechanistically expected accuracy cost for most models. A stress test using a non-instruction-tuned base model shows that executing a debiasing intervention at all is gated by zero-shot instruction-following ability, not prompt content alone. We release our dataset, human-validated for fact preservation, as a standalone resource for studying register-based clinical bias.

Large language models are increasingly used as decision aids whose probability judgments shape downstream choices. Whether those judgments carry a systematic directional tilt has been hard to detect: calibration metrics aggregate unsigned errors, and naturalistic uncertainty offers no ground-truth probability. When an LLM rates a startup's success at 70% but its failure at 15%, the missing 15 points expose a distortion no aggregate score flags. We introduce OptimismBench, which detects directional bias with inverted pairs: each scenario elicits both P(success) and P(failure), and asymmetry between the two framings yields a signed bias score without ground truth. Across 16 models from 8 providers, fourteen are optimistic; pessimism appears only in Anthropic's frontier tier. Eleven matched base-versus-chat pairs across four families show post-training sets the sign of the bias, with opposite shifts in different families. The pattern survives prompt, temperature, perspective, and self-debiasing ablations. A seventeen-model six-language comparison further shows model identity dominates language, with inter-model variance at 4.7x inter-language variance. We release 3,870 items across 10 languages for per-model directional-bias auditing. When alignment makes a model more helpful, it also tilts its probabilities; downstream pipelines inherit the tilt by default.

Large language models may easily assign personality labels from text, but model interpretability remains an open problem. To address this gap, we introduce LEX-EC, a reusable black-box audit framework combining prevalence and agreement diagnostics with controlled lexical ablation to distinguish marginal-distribution effects from trait-associated signal recoverable under restricted evidence. Using this framework, we illustrate how various text genres may exhibit sharply different profiles: free-form essay text contains the broadest, but still weak, signal; in graduate student introductions, an observable Extraversion association weakened after masking; and single Facebook statuses yield little stable evidence even in a trait-balanced sample, indicating a possible lower bound of content or length. Masking topical and demographic content weakened some associations while leaving others detectable from function words, affective terms, and cognitive-style vocabulary. Linguistic prompting shifted model self-explanations but did not eliminate topical content. LEX-EC jointly evaluates classification prevalence, item-level association, chance-corrected agreement, persistence under lexical restriction, and prompt sensitivity in model-generated explanations. Across datasets, models, and prompts, LEX-EC characterizes how trait associations may vary with available lexical evidence, introducing a novel application of lexical methods to black-box interpretability in personality labeling.

Political audits of large language models (LLMs) usually reduce each to one point on a political compass. But that resting point barely matters in deployment: a model must land somewhere, and what counts is how far, and in which directions, its answers can be steered. That steering runs through the system prompt: the personalization layer a platform sets, or one induced from a user's history, not necessarily written by hand. We run a dispersion-first stress test of prompt-based controllability across 12 ideological personas plus an unsteered baseline, 70 Political Compass items, ten replicates, and seven leading LLMs: GPT-5, Claude, Grok, Gemini, DeepSeek, Kimi, and Qwen (63,700 responses). Contextual framing explains roughly 88%-93% of variance on the economic and society axes, model identity under 3%: responses are highly instruction-adjustable. Models do not shift alike: some move more, and some saturate under extreme framings. Conflicting directional-steering results in prior audits resolve once baselines are recognized as non-centered: displacement and proximity diverge, so the effect is geometric, not differential compliance. Under authoritarian prompts, models produce similar shifts on the same questions. Political-coordinate audits therefore need steerability audits reporting dispersion, symmetry, saturation, and refusal floors. We release prompts, benchmark data, and code.

Machine unlearning has emerged as a tool for removing personal data from trained models to comply with recent AI regulations. To evaluate unlearning effectiveness in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), prior works fine-tune models on fictitious identities, simulating unlearning requests on subsets of these IDs, which are typically uniformly distributed. However, in realistic scenarios, people from different demographic groups may request to be unlearned at different frequencies, potentially altering the model's internal beliefs for these groups and leading to biased behaviors. To fill this gap, we propose FAIRGET, the first Visual Question Answering benchmark that evaluates unlearning under unbalanced, realistic, forget requests. These requests are designed to simulate multiple realistic scenarios, ranging from simple to challenging settings, that lead to biased unlearned models if fairness is not accounted for. Additionally, we propose FAUN, the first unlearning algorithm for MLLMs that forgets unlearning data while preserving model fairness. FAUN exploits a bias-aware activation steering mechanism to unlearn identities while accounting for the unbalanced nature of the forget data. Experiments on FAIRGET and the established FIUBench demonstrate our method's superiority both in unlearning quality and fairness.

Almost every large language model that reaches a broad audience is quantized: trained in full precision, then compressed for efficiency. This step is assumed harmless and its safety is rarely re-checked. We find its principal side effect is increased bias that standard safety evaluation misses. Holding the model, its training, and the prompts fixed, a quantized model still refuses harmful requests, still avoids over-refusing benign prompts, and still selects the unbiased multiple-choice answer. Yet asked an open-ended question, the same model volunteers stereotypes in all eight languages we probe, in roughly one in four open-ended answers under an independent judge (~24% to ~27% across the compression ladder): it passes every standard check and still reaches users measurably more biased. The selective gap is a robust finding; whether open-ended bias further increases with compression is less certain, sensitive to the judge that scores it. We address both with \textbf{QuantiBias}, a benchmark that pairs a generative, multilingual stereotype probe with the refusal and multiple-choice controls that isolate open-ended generation, contrasts each build with and without reasoning, and rates the content severity of what it generates. Across two backbone models (Qwen and Gemma), a five-family screen, and eight benchmarks, quantizers allocate their extra precision by capability data that carries no bias-prevention signal, and reasoning before answering roughly halves the effect on some families while doing nothing on others. A quantized build must be re-evaluated for open-ended bias, not only on the short-form safeguards it already passes.

Large language models trained and aligned within different linguistic and regional ecosystems may frame the same political, cultural, and geopolitical entities in different ways. Such differences are often evaluated through sentiment, favorability, or stance, reducing model attitudes to a single positive-negative axis. We introduce REGARD, a study of what drives affective framing differences across LLMs on post-Soviet entities using target-directed Valence-Arousal-Dominance profiling. We query 19 models on 500 region-specific targets, score their responses with two independent LLM judges, GPT-4o-mini and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, and validate the measurements on a 300-item human-annotated subset. Post-hoc Ward-linkage clustering of all 19 models by affective and response-behavior profiles yields three behavioral clusters that cut across model origin, family, and parameter count. Generic-answer rate is strongly associated with lower arousal (r = -0.81) and with cluster placement: models that deflect evaluative prompts with templated responses cluster together at low arousal regardless of origin. These findings show that VAD profiling captures emotional intensity, a dimension of affective framing that is largely invisible to conventional sentiment-based evaluation.

Value alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) has been shown to be culturally biased toward Western norms. This results in the mishandling of local values in multilingual societies such as Sri Lanka that have their unique cultural dynamics. Existing benchmarks overlook Sri Lankan-contextualized values in its official language Sinhala, hindering culturally sensitive evaluation and fine-tuning. To bridge this gap, we propose LKValues, the first survey-grounded resource suite for Sri Lankan value alignment. From a trilingual survey of 205 respondents, blending adapted global frameworks and LLM-elicited local constructs, we derive 40 majority-endorsed societal values. Using these values, we construct LKvaluesIT, a Sinhala-English news-derived instruction corpus containing 150k scenario-based instances, and LKvaluesBench, a value-sensitive evaluation benchmark of 1,000 instances. We evaluate a set of proprietary and open-weight LLMs with LKvaluesBench. We fine-tune three open-weight base models (Qwen3.5-4B-Base, Qwen3.5-9B-Base, and Aya-Expanse-8B-Base). Our experiments show that newer and larger LLMs still exhibit low-resource and cultural value-alignment gaps. LKValues fine-tuning improves Qwen-family models in English and Sinhala, reducing invalid outputs and cross-lingual disparities, though gains remain model-family dependent. These highlight LKValues efficacy in embedding Sri Lankan values, offering a replicable pipeline for low-resource, country-specific pluralist value alignment. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/NextME14/LKValues.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview. This raises concerns beyond bias in AI: do LLMs grasp the emotional nuances conveyed via textual framing? In this work, we empirically evaluate how well an array of LLMs aligns with human emotional perception. Considering news headlines covering political and geopolitical conflicts, both human participants (n = 3011, a representative sample of the U.K. adult population, via a YouGov survey) and seven LLMs answered whether headlines evoked sympathy for a specified side in a conflict. We find that the correlation between AI and human evaluations varies across models, ranging from very high (0.789, GPT-5.2) to medium (0.4 ,Mistral Large 2512). Crucially, the leading models are broadly aligned with human judgments across all demographic subgroups, including age, gender, level of education, prior geopolitical knowledge, and participants' predispositions regarding the conflict, although there are statistically significant differences between groups. This research, with its robust design and large, demographically diverse dataset, offers the most comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' comprehension of news framing to date. Findings highlight an important, often-ignored aspect of differential alignment: even when aggregate performance is high, AI alignment is not universal -- it may correspond differently with demographic features and cultural norms. Considering or ignoring the need for differential alignment may therefore have significant implications for the development of ethical and useful AI systems.

We present AutoJourn, a demonstration system for multi-perspective news generation and bias-aware evaluation using large language models (LLMs). The system tackles three core challenges in responsible automated journalism: extracting diverse perspectives from unstructured social media discussions, generating summaries that preserve viewpoint diversity, and detecting or mitigating bias in AI-generated news. The pipeline integrates advanced prompt engineering with optional retrieval augmentation to produce semantically diverse perspective sets, a multi-perspective summarisation module that merges conflicting viewpoints into balanced summaries, and a bias analysis suite supporting sentence-level bias detection and type classification in the generated news article, and automatic neutralisation. Users can inspect perspective clusters, compare stance-specific summaries, generate news articles, and apply bias-aware rewrites directly in the interface. We evaluate each component with intrinsic metrics -- semantic diversity, summary quality, and bias reduction and show improvements over strong baselines while maintaining content fidelity. A live, publicly accessible demo accompanies the paper to facilitate reproducibility and further research on socially responsible automated journalism.