Large Language Model Bias

Modern LLMs are alarmingly susceptible to surprisingly simple immaterial changes of input prompts: a casual hint, an incorrectly labeled few-shot example, or a fake prior assistant turn often flips an originally correct answer. We study where this susceptibility, spanning sycophancy and related cue-induced biases, lives inside the model. Across five model families and seven bias types, we extract a per-bias direction from hidden states and triangulate it through three measures: probing, leave-one-dataset-out (LODO) transfer, and causal intervention. The susceptibility is largely shaped by alignment tuning rather than pretraining: pretrained base models generally cave much less to these biases, and their activations carry much weaker cue-specific signal beyond question content. Within aligned models, each bias has a coherent linear direction that we can both decode and steer along, recovering the unbiased answer across every family we test. The biases do not collapse into a single shared representation, however: cross-bias overlap is model-specific, and even behaviorally similar biases occupy different directions. The same intervention also provides a proof-of-concept debiasing tool, recovering a meaningful share of bias-induced errors while preserving most correct answers across all instruct families. Cue-induced bias is therefore best understood not as a single flaw in LLMs but as a family of causally effective linear directions that are largely shaped by alignment tuning.

Online encyclopedias shape political opinion and, through it, democratic discourse. In late 2025, Grokipedia was released, an encyclopedia written entirely by the LLM Grok. One motivation behind the project was to provide an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia, which has faced accusations of "left-wing" and "liberal" bias. But does an encyclopedia written by an LLM deliver greater neutrality, or does it simply embed a different ideology? We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia, analysing 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality along nine expert-coded ideology dimensions employing four LLM judges, Grok, Claude, Mistral, and DeepSeek. As the LLMs could themselves be biased, we also investigate patterns in their judgments. We find all LLM-judges, including Grok, to rate Grokipedia less neutral than Wikipedia. Both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups. Grokipedia particularly favours economically right-wing politicians and penalises socially liberal ones, while Wikipedia is rated as favourably biased towards the latter.

This study examines the cross-prompt generalization and first-language (L1) scoring effects of a LoRA-adapted open-weight large language model (Gemma-3-27B-it) applied to automated essay scoring. Using the identical model and inference configuration reported in "AiAWE: An Open-Source LLM Automated Writing Evaluation System Using LoRA-Adapted Instruction-Tuned Models" (Gayed, 2026), which was fine-tuned on 480 argumentative essays from two prompts, we evaluate scoring accuracy on the full TOEFL11 corpus: 12,100 essays written by test-takers from 11 first-language backgrounds across eight prompts, none of which were seen during training. The model's raw scores (0.5-5.0) are mapped to the same three proficiency bands (low, medium, high) used by ETS, enabling direct comparison. The model achieved an overall band agreement of 77.79% and a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.702, with adjacent-band agreement of 99.98%. Accuracy was stable across all eight unseen prompts, with no advantage for prompts thematically related to the training data, indicating robust cross-prompt generalization. However, the model exhibited a systematic, L1-linked scoring offset. Within every proficiency band, essays from European-language backgrounds received consistently higher scores than essays from East-Asian-language backgrounds, a pattern not attributable to the composition of the fine-tuning data. This is the first large-scale L1 fairness analysis of a fine-tuned open-weight LLM for automated essay scoring.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has been increasingly adopted to reduce hallucinations and strengthen the factual grounding of large language models (LLMs). While robustness to errors in the retrieval process has been explored, the impact of ideological bias on LLM outputs has been overlooked. For instance, if the retrieved material contains ideological positions, the RAG may transmit, amplify, or suppress such ideological discourses in its outputs. In this study, we address this issue by examining the influence of the RAG framework, comprising ideological discourses, in LLM-generated answers. To this end, we applied Lexical Multidimensional Analysis (LMDA) on a corpus of 1,117 COVID-19 treatment articles, identifying three ideological discourses. This corpus is then used as the external knowledge source for the RAG. We assessed several LLMs by having the models answer ideological questions at different sampling temperatures. The generated texts were assessed semantically and lexically based on their similarities with ideological reference texts. Our findings show that the RAG framework is prone to transferring ideological discourses into LLM responses, with sampling temperature having a measurable impact on the strength of this transfer. Discoursive alignment between generated answers and the reference text is highest at moderate temperatures, where models balance stochasticity with retrieval grounding, and drops at low temperatures, indicating that overly deterministic sampling suppresses discourse transfer.

A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as conversational tutors, they risk institutionalizing systemic inequalities. This study presents a systematic API audit of four LLMs acting as history tutors, evaluating 1,800 responses regarding the 1989 Romanian Revolution across five student personas varying by ethnicity and socio-economic tier. We uncover four interconnected patterns of \emph{epistemic paternalism}: (1)\textbf{Differential Refusal}, where safety-aligned models block 76.7% of educational requests from low-tier students; (2)\textbf{Epistemic Gatekeeping}, evidenced by a 3$\times$ reduction in access to geopolitical complexity (e.g., the contested ``coup theory'') for marginalized learners; (3)\textbf{Agency Theft}, a lexical shift where models like LLaMA produce a 5$\times$ higher victimization-to-politics vocabulary ratio for Roma students compared to elite peers; and (4)\textbf{Elite Hermeneutics}, where AI tutors disproportionately withhold epistemic confidence and justification scores from low-resource demographic profiles. We argue that current safety alignment acts as a paternalistic filter, transforming conversational AI into agents of narrative segregation -- a manifestation of \emph{hermeneutical injustice} in Fricker's~\cite{fricker2007} sense that demands urgent pedagogical auditing.

While Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities, they remain highly susceptible to embedded social biases. Existing bias evaluation protocols predominantly rely on static datasets, which provide only a superficial assessment, as their fixed test cases cannot adaptively evolve to measure the true depth and limits of model vulnerabilities. We introduce DeepBias, an adaptive framework for the in-depth probing of social biases in LVLMs with carefully designed agents. Our approach operates through a dynamic ''generation-evolution-probing'' loop. First, a generative ProposerAgent synthesizes test data and is iteratively updated via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) based on the target LVLM's responses, exploring model-specific failure modes. Second, an autonomous skill-driven DiggerAgent rewrites each test data across multiple probing turns, adaptively selecting from a curated skill library of deepening and rewriting strategies. At each turn, this process is conditioned on the model's previous response, enabling progressively deeper biases to be exposed. Furthermore, we build a benchmark named DeepBiasBench using our framework. By employing an ensemble of five diverse state-of-the-art LVLMs as anchors, the benchmark captures vulnerabilities shared across architectures. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework and show that DeepBias provides a challenging benchmark for in-depth bias evaluation, establishing an evolutionary paradigm for LVLM safety assessment.

African American English (AAE), a rule-governed dialect spoken by over 30 million people, is routinely misinterpreted and "corrected" by large language models (LLMs). Across six instruction-tuned LLMs (14B to 70B), we show that state-of-the-art models systematically prefer Standard American English (SAE) continuations even when the preceding context is in AAE, effectively rewriting AAE into SAE. We present an end-to-end framework to audit and mitigate this bias. For auditing, we introduce conditional Dialect Group Invariance (cDGI), which isolates true model bias from translator-induced artifacts, and a feature-level localization analysis that identifies which AAE markers most strongly trigger bias; we find that syntactic constructions, especially negative concord (e.g., "ain't nobody"), are universal triggers across all models. For mitigation, we introduce, to our knowledge, the first application of activation steering to dialect bias: a training-free, test-time method that extracts dialect directions via causal tracing and injects them into bias-relevant layers. Activation steering reduces bias 5 to 20 times more than prompting while preserving SAE fluency. To enable this work, we release REAL-AAE , the largest real-AAE parallel corpus to date: 17,479 AAE/SAE/ AAE_back triplets from natural tweets (2 to 6 times larger than prior real-AAE resources), validated automatically (BERTScore F1 = 0.95) and by three native AAE speakers (83.0% semantic agreement).

LLMs enable the integration of external conceptual resources at inference time, creating new opportunities for detecting ideologically and historically complex phenomena such as antisemitism. We investigate how different forms of conceptual grounding affect antisemitism detection and explanation behavior across four state-of-the-art LLMs. Using two expert-annotated datasets, we compare definitional, fine-grained taxonomic, example-augmented, and large-context representations of antisemitism. We find that fine-grained taxonomic representations substantially improve recall, while simultaneously reducing precision. Surprisingly, supplying substantially larger conceptual resources yields no additional quantitative benefit. Post-Holocaust antisemitism poses the most persistent challenge across models and configurations. Analysis of explanations further reveals systematic limitations including overproduction of conceptual references, reliance on lexical cues, overconfidence, and difficulties with subtle or justificatory forms of antisemitism. Our findings highlight both the potential and the remaining limitations of conceptually grounded LLMs for antisemitism detection and reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful backbones for recommender systems by reformulating recommendation as a token-level generation task. Despite their promise, we identify a pervasive yet underexplored issue: $\textit{Length Bias}$. Because items are represented by textual descriptions of varying lengths, LLM-based recommenders can be systematically biased in two ways. On the input side, longer item descriptions occupy more tokens in the context and thus receive disproportionately large aggregate attention mass during user preference modeling. On the output side, decoding based on summed autoregressive log-likelihood score inherently disfavors long items. Worse still, conventional length normalization can introduce an additional bias and even degrade recommendation performance. To address this problem, we propose $\textbf{LBR}$ ($\textbf{L}$ength $\textbf{B}$ias $\textbf{R}$eduction), a lightweight and model-agnostic framework for mitigating length bias in LLM-based recommendation. LBR mitigates input-side bias via Length-Aware Attention Calibration, which incorporates a length-dependent offset into attention logits to neutralize attention skew. For the output side, LBR introduces Effective Information Length Normalization, replacing naive token count with an information-theoretic length surrogate derived from the branching structure of the prefix tree. Extensive experiments on three real-world Amazon datasets and two representative LLM-based recommenders demonstrate that LBR substantially alleviates length bias while consistently improving recommendation accuracy and fairness, with negligible additional training and inference overhead (with an average NDCG@5 gain of 16.82%). The code is available at https://github.com/Void-JackLee/LBR.

The alignment of large language models with human preferences is commonly achieved through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback or Direct Preference Optimization. However, these methods are vulnerable to the significant noise prevalent in real-world preference datasets. To address this critical issue, we present a theoretical framework for unbiased alignment, introducing the Unbiased Reward Model (URM) loss and the Unbiased Direct Preference Optimization (UDPO) loss. By mathematically correcting the distortion induced by preference noise, our novel objectives enable unbiased model training directly from noisy datasets, without requiring clean ground-truth supervision. We provide rigorous theoretical analyses demonstrating that our methods are noise-tolerant, parameter downward compatible, and classification-calibrated. Comprehensive experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate that our approaches outperform state-of-the-art baselines. Code available at: https://github.com/cswjl/unbiased-alignment.

Language models deployed in high-stakes roles can potentially favor certain entities, brands, or viewpoints, steering user decisions at scale. Such preferential biases can be introduced by any actor in the model's supply chain and are most dangerous when the model reveals its preference only on the relevant topic while behaving identically to its unmodified base on all other inputs. Recent work has shown that these biases can transfer through context distillation on semantically unrelated data, with the signal residing entirely in the soft logit distribution and remaining invisible to text-based inspection. However, the defender faces a fundamental asymmetry: without knowing the bias topic, no detection method can reliably surface a stealth preferential bias, regardless of whether it examines generated text, internal representations, or model weights. Here we introduce Distill to Detect (D2D), a method that surfaces hidden biases by distilling the distributional shift between a suspected model and its base into a cartridge (a KV-cache prefix adapter), concentrating the dominant divergence and amplifying the bias signal into generated text. We show that D2D successfully amplifies the hidden biases of stealth models to the extent that they can be reliably detected across multiple bias types. We also propose a theoretical framework that explains the efficacy of D2D through the lens of Fisher-weighted projection of the logit distribution shift, supported by empirical observations. By turning the capacity bottleneck of prefix-tuning adapters into a detection tool, D2D provides a practical building block for auditing hidden behaviors in deployed language models.

Large-language models have proven to be remarkable if inconsistent parrots of public attitudes and opinions. The extent to which LLMs are able to produce reasonable approximations of cultural taste remains an open empirical question that becomes more urgent by the day, with market research companies already offering provisional 'synthetic' survey panels and the contamination of standard survey data from LLM-generated responses. In this study, we build on past work on silicon sampling by extending considerations of their ecological, relational, and positional fidelity in the doomain of cultural tastes. We use large-language models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepSeek to produce 554,940 silicon surrogates of survey respondents from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA). We find these silicon surrogates' tastes to be highly stylized facsimiles of human tastes. First, silicon samples are super-omnivorous with a systematic postive-bias for liking. These individual-level bias of silicon samples are not well-explained by the WEIRD-bias often discussed in the literature. Second, the complex relationality in real taste structures is completely distorted among silicon samples. Third, very little of the known cultural alignment between tastes and social space are preserved. Silicon samples juvenilize age-taste associations, resurrect anachronistic class-taste associations, and caricaturize gender- and race-taste associations. Key words: AI, taste, consumption, culture, silicon sampling, meta-analysis.

As Large Language Models are increasingly deployed in critical applications, robustly evaluating their social biases is paramount. However, the current literature suffers from widespread methodological fragmentation, which yields contradictory conclusions. This stems largely from ignoring the structural framing of benchmark-level evaluations. To resolve this, we introduce a unified and controllable framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to systematically contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings. Crucially, this allows us to disentangle the confounding effects of Chain-of-Thought reasoning, neutral fallback options, and other structural artifacts in social bias evaluations. Our evaluation across multiple model families reveals a massive, systematic paradigm gap: while isolated assessments limit prejudice activation, comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts. Alarmingly, CoT reasoning exacerbates social biases under comparative settings, and this systemic bias persists as a deterministic prejudice even when models are provided neutral fallback options or claim to answer randomly. Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size. Ultimately, we offer a crucial methodological guideline: while researchers must leverage comparative settings to robustly audit hidden biases, practitioners cannot safely rely on comparative deployments in ambiguous real-world tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate how people form impressions of organisations, yet most monitoring is done in English, assuming an English query returns a representative picture. We measure how far that holds. We queried three grounded LLMs (GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Perplexity Sonar Pro) about 66 brands from eleven Northern, Baltic, and Central European markets, in twelve languages across four families (Germanic, Uralic, Baltic, Slavic), generating 35,640 responses. Multilingual embeddings (BGE-M3) allow cross-language comparison without translation. Three results emerge. First, AI-constructed reputation is language-bound: mean cross-language cosine similarity is 0.825, same-family responses are more similar than cross-family (0.844 vs 0.820; d = 0.31), and sentiment varies by language (F = 268.5, eta^2 = 0.077), with Uralic and Baltic languages most positive and Germanic, including English, most critical; clustering recovers the Slavic and Baltic families (cophenetic 0.915). Second, query language shifts which brands are recommended far more than how they are described: moving from an English query to a brand's home language raises recommendation share by 0.80 for local champions but only 0.15 for global multinationals (t = -8.84, p < 0.001), with no comparable reversal in sentiment. An English-only audit therefore understates a local champion's AI visibility. Third, response stability varies more with model choice than with language (eta^2_model = 0.32 vs eta^2_language = 0.01, on a five-iteration replication over a 20-brand subset). These results indicate that English-only AI reputation monitoring leaves a measurable language blind spot, concentrated in the visibility of locally headquartered brands.

This study investigates sentiment polarity biases, specifically, differences in how accurately AI models classify positive versus negative reviews across languages and model architectures. Large language models show a negative bias in French and are more accurate on negative reviews, while encoder models exhibit positive bias in Japanese, missing negative reviews that use indirect criticism. These language-specific polarity biases have implications in both social and business domains deploying multilingual sentiment analysis systems.

Large language models (LLMs) can readily reproduce conventional expressions, yet their ability to model gradient frequency distributions remains underexplored. We investigate this using linguistic binomials, such as men and women, where both word permutations are grammatically valid but exhibit distinct, cross-linguistic variations in conventionality. We formalize binomial ordering as a distributional alignment problem, and construct a multilingual dataset of 600 binomial pairs across 8 languages. With categorical and distributional metrics, we measure and compare the corpus-derived preferences with model-induced ordering probabilities of 6 open-weight LLMs. While models often behaviorally recover the dominant corpus-preferred order, particularly for strongly conventionalized pairs, they align less well with the exact corpus preference distributions. This suggests that apparent directional order overstates how faithfully LLMs capture the statistical nuances of language use. Sparse probing verifies that the concept of preference strength is partially encoded among middle-to-late layers, and steering along probe-derived directions alters model-induced ordering distributions, demonstrating that the statistical behavioral preference of LLMs can be mechanistically measured and manipulated via internal representations.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in personally and societally consequential settings, yet the visual cues that shape how these models judge people remain poorly understood. Prior work often compares different (groups of) individuals, making it difficult to separate appearance effects from identity differences. We introduce StylisticBias, a controlled benchmark for evaluating attribute-level social bias in MLLMs. We generate 500 photorealistic base faces and create about 50 single-attribute variations per face, producing about 25K images. This design keeps identity fixed and changes one visual attribute at a time. It lets us measure how specific cues shift model judgments. We evaluate six MLLMs across 25 binary social judgment scenarios. We find that age and body type dominate identity-level effects, while fashion style and other visual cues drive the largest attribute-level shifts. We further find that about 15 attributes account for nearly 80% of the total variation, showing that bias is concentrated in a small set of visual cues. Sensitivity is strongest in judgments that are semantically aligned with appearance, especially socioeconomic and style-related judgments. We release StylisticBias as a benchmark for fine-grained bias evaluation in multimodal models. Code and dataset: https://github.com/timo-cavelius/StylisticBias and https://hf.co/datasets/shaghayegh/stylistic-bias-dataset.

Modern conversational AI systems frequently rely on user metadata to localize responses, yet the unintended regional biases introduced by this hidden context remain poorly understood. In this work, we evaluate location leakage: the phenomenon where a model generates geographic references despite receiving a geographically neutral user prompt. Across both creative writing and open-ended Q&A prompts, even state-of-the-art LLMs systematically favor region-specific outputs when exposed to location metadata, with leakage spiking by up to 793 times above baseline (e.g., from 0.04% to 31.7% for Llama 3.1-8B, and 21.3% and 8.8% for Qwen3-8B and Claude Sonnet 4.6, respectively). Our analysis further shows a novel structural conditioning effect: replacing the injected location with the placeholder "Unknown" still elevates leakage by up to 72 times above baseline, demonstrating that the user profile frame itself, independent of any geographic content, acts as a generative conditioning signal.

Evaluations of social bias in LLMs largely focus on whether models generate or imply biased content. However, as LLMs are increasingly used as judges of bias, they may exhibit social biases in subtler ways in how they evaluate biased content, which current methods do not systematically capture. We call this second-order bias: social bias in an LLM's judgment about social bias, which we evaluate through a novel, philosophically grounded reasoning task. Drawing on entitlement epistemology, we conceptualize bias as misplaced foundational knowledge that shapes an agent's rational inquiry, and derive a logical reasoning task for LLMs to judge to whom a biased text is acceptable or non-acceptable. We develop two simple metrics to measure how biased LLM judges are in inferring demographics for acceptability without sufficient support, and how these inferences vary across groups targeted by biased texts. Evaluating open and closed models, we find that our task evades safety guardrails by surfacing bias in model judgment. It varies systematically across target groups, reflects implicit social maps, and shows how models are still triggered by demographic labels. Our work points to the need for LLM bias evaluation in judgment tasks and broadly, for more theoretically grounded approaches to bias evaluation in NLP. We release our code and model responses at https://github.com/uofthcdslab/second-order-bias.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly take actions (screening applicants, recommending credit, triaging patients), yet fairness for LLMs is still measured by grading answers. We introduce AgentFairBench, a cheap, reproducible, multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in the actions of LLM agents. Grounded in a companion framework, the Bias Conduction Framework (BCF, restated here), it spans three regulator-anchored domains: hiring, lending, and medical triage. Synthetic, demographic-neutral profiles are evaluated in counterfactual matched sets that vary only a name-coded race x gender signal (in the Bertrand Mullainathan tradition), under four agent scaffolds of increasing agency (direct, chain-of-thought, multi-agent deliberation, tool-augmented). A NumPy-only harness computes counterfactual flip rate, mean absolute score difference (MASD), action-rate disparity, and tool-invocation disparity, with bootstrap confidence intervals, paired tests, and false-discovery-rate control, for single-digit dollars per model. A live leaderboard with a held-out private split and a contamination canary admits external models by submission. Our pilot (864 decisions plus a test-retest replication) carries a methodological lesson: comparing a six-group score spread against a two-run noise difference overstates disparity by ~ 2.4X through statistic arity alone. Against an arity matched noise floor and an omnibus group test, claude haiku 4 5 shows no demographic effect above sampling noise (0 of 120 pairwise and 0 of 9 omnibus contrasts survive correction); a planted-bias test confirms the instrument detects disparity when present. The contribution is a sound, sensitive, adoption-ready instrument, the arity matched null methodology, and open artifacts to scale it. Code, data, and harness are released under open licenses, with an anonymized review artifact.

Five years after the discovery of persistent anti-Muslim bias in large language models, most evaluations remain confined to single-turn prompt completion, a setting that no longer reflects how frontier LLMs are deployed. We introduce \textbf{MIRAGE} (Muslim-Identity Reasoning and Agentic Generation Evaluation), a benchmark of 1{,}200 prompts spanning three deployment-realistic conditions: direct completion, chain-of-thought reasoning, and simulated agentic decision-making across content moderation, lending triage, refugee claim summarization, and hiring screens. Across six frontier models, we find that (i) chain-of-thought reasoning \emph{amplifies} rather than suppresses Muslim-violence associations by 12--34% relative to direct completion, (ii) agentic decisions exhibit a 9--22 percentage-point asymmetry between Muslim and matched non-Muslim cases on identical evidence, and (iii) bias is sharply time-coupled to retrieved news context, increasing 18--27% under recent-conflict retrieval. Existing prompt-based mitigations transfer poorly across our three conditions, suppressing direct-completion bias while leaving agentic asymmetry largely intact. We release MIRAGE and an open evaluation harness to support targeted mitigation research.

Transformer-based clinical language models are increasingly integrated into high-stakes clinical decision support pipelines, yet the computational mechanisms through which demographic associations encoded in medical documentation propagate into model probability distributions remain empirically underspecified. We present a systematic computational audit of representational bias in ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019), a BERT-based model pretrained on MIMIC-III discharge summaries, employing two complementary probing methodologies: Log Probability Bias Analysis (LPBA), which quantifies demographic descriptor-induced shifts in masked token probability distributions across behavioral and evaluative semantic categories, and Masked Language Model-based analysis (MLM), which probes internal representational structure for demographic agency attribution encoding across 98 real clinical sentence templates and eight intersectional race-gender combinations. Corpus frequency analysis operationalizes the distinction between statistical disparity and bias amplification by benchmarking model outputs against empirical term frequencies in the MIMIC-III training corpus. Of 32 statistically significant findings, 65.6% contradict observed corpus distributions, rising to 80% for Black patients and 87.5% for agency attribution under MLM probing, providing direct empirical evidence that representational bias in ClinicalBERT operates predominantly through model-internal amplification rather than training data inheritance. Keywords: natural language processing, clinical documentation, algorithmic auditing, representational bias, health equity 1

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for bias using adaptations of human psychological paradigms, yet methodological limitations-particularly the conflation of refusal behavior with task performance-have hindered clear interpretation. Here, we adapt the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to a controlled, forced-choice framework and introduce a two-stage modeling approach that separates response compliance from task-consistent classification. Across three contemporary LLMs (Claude Sonnet-4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-5), we evaluate associative interference, defined as reduced task-consistency in incongruent relative to congruent conditions. While compliance with the structured response format was uniformly high, interference effects varied substantially across models and domains. Claude Sonnet-4 exhibited strong interference in the Gender--Career domain (DeltaP = 0.086, 95% CrI [0.026, 0.173]) and smaller but credible effects in Gender--Science. Gemini 2.5 Pro showed attenuated interference, and GPT-5 exhibited minimal or no detectable interference across domains. These findings demonstrate that IAT-style associative asymmetries are not a universal property of LLMs, but instead depend on model-specific characteristics. By isolating interference from compliance and modeling item-level variability, this study provides a principled framework for evaluating structured response patterns in LLMs. The results highlight the importance of model-specific assessment and suggest that associative interference can be substantially mitigated in modern systems.

As language models take integrated roles across many domains, the response of LLMs to user pushback becomes a critical alignment property. Yet many existing evaluations treat compliance as unidirectional, measuring whether models resist pressure but not whether they resist it selectively. We introduce Compliance Asymmetry (A = BCR/HCR), a bidirectional diagnostic that compares beneficial output change under helpful nudges with harmful change under misleading nudges. Across 9 models and 972,000 nudge-condition responses, we find that this selectivity differs in factual and moral judgments: models follow helpful nudges more than harmful ones on factual questions (A = 1.58), but follow both directions at nearly identical rates on moral questions (A = 1.04). This phenomenon persists across model families, capability levels, and nudging types. Interestingly, we also find that chain-of-thought prompting amplifies helpful and harmful compliance together, while identity-based prompting suppresses both by nearly identical margins. These results identify direction-blind moral compliance as a distinct failure mode in current LLMs and suggest that alignment should target directionally calibrated updating rather than lower compliance alone.

Language operates as a mechanism of both marginalization and resistance, especially for minority communities navigating insensitive and harmful speech online. As content moderation increasingly depends on large language models (LLMs), concerns arise about whether these systems can recognize culturally insensitive speech-language that disregards or marginalizes the cultural and religious perspectives of historically underrepresented communities, often through implicit erasure, misrepresentation, or normative framing, rather than overt hostility. Focusing on Bangladesh's Hindu and Chakma communities -- the country's largest religious and Indigenous ethnic minorities, respectively -- this paper investigates the epistemic limits of LLM-based moderation systems and explores methods for incorporating minority perspectives. We co-created a culturally grounded corpus of insensitive speech with community members and integrated their narratives into moderation pipelines using retrieval augmented generation (RAG). Our tool, Mod-Guide, improves LLM sensitivity to minority viewpoints by leveraging contextual cues derived from lived experience. Through mixed-method evaluations involving both minority and majority participants, we demonstrate that RAG-enhanced moderation responses are more contextually accurate and perceived differently across ethnic lines. This work advances research in human-computer interaction, AI ethics, and social computing by foregrounding restorative justice and hermeneutical inclusion in the design of content moderation systems.

The growing need to represent diverse perspectives has increased interest in pluralistic LLM generation. Although difficult to operationalize, identifying perspectives expressed in text would provide clear guidance on pluralistic alignment and more clearly articulate the pluralistic gap in LLM generation. While models have been shown to reduce the diversity of training data and generate homogeneously, this has been demonstrated primarily on multiple-choice questionnaires or using high-level characteristics of free-form text. In this paper, we introduce and implement a domain-agnostic multi-layered framework for unsupervised extraction of perspectives suitable for identifying the pluralistic gap in LLM-generated text. We evaluate our framework on book reviews, a highly opinionated dataset representing diverse perspectives, and compare various prompts and models. Our results show that while some models and prompting techniques come close to covering a broad spectrum of perspectives, rarer perspectives remain disproportionately underrepresented, resulting in distributions that diverge from human text.

Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.

Research on bias in large language models (LLMs) has predominantly focused on third-person audits, which study how models represent or evaluate demographic groups as external subjects. However, this paradigm overlooks a structural blind spot because the user is absent from the audit. In practice, LLMs are used in open-ended, personal interactions, during which the model implicitly represents the user and adjusts its responses accordingly. When identical requests yield different responses depending on who is asking, bias manifests not in how the model describes others but in how it treats its interlocutor. We propose Situated Interaction Auditing (SIA), a user-centered framework for studying how user profile signals -- implicit sociodemographic markers, writing style, and stated identity -- systematically shape LLM response quality, content, and tone. We demonstrate the framework through a case study that intersects gender and socioeconomic status signals across multiple task domains and outline a research agenda for SIA as a new mission for natural language processing.

Most fairness research in NLP assumes direct access to protected attributes such as gender, race, or nationality. In practice, however, such information is often unavailable due to privacy constraints, missing metadata, or legal restrictions, even though models may infer it from indirect textual cues. This raises a key question: can debiasing succeed without direct access to sensitive attributes? We propose H-SAL, which performs post-hoc concept and attribute erasure using self-description text as an implicit debiasing signal. To support this setting, we introduce a multi-domain Stack Exchange-based fairness benchmark for helpfulness prediction that includes both explicit and implicit signals, enabling comparison between standard debiasing with protected labels and debiasing without access to sensitive information. Across encoder and decoder-only language models, we find that implicit self-description often matches or outperforms explicit-label-based debiasing. Our results broaden representation-level fairness research and provide a new benchmark for studying debiasing under realistic data constraints.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed across cultural contexts but often reflect homogenized values inherited from training data. Evaluations of cultural alignment typically rely on direct prompting with survey-style questions, which frequently elicit neutral or safety-aligned responses and fail to capture underlying model preferences. We propose a framework for probing and steering latent cultural representations in LLMs along the two Inglehart--Welzel axes of the World Values Survey (WVS). By translating social value questions into scenario-based behavioral dilemmas, we extract token-level probabilities to measure implicit values and apply activation steering, optionally combined with country-conditioned prompting, to shift model behavior without retraining. Across three open-source LLMs and four target cultures, we find substantial variation in steerability and identify latent entanglement, where interventions along one cultural dimension induce shifts along another. This coupling mirrors correlations in human WVS data and persists across activation, prompt, and hybrid steering. It constrains axis-independent alignment, though general task performance is largely preserved.

This study investigates cross-lingual distributional skew (the Shibboleth Effect) in frontier large language models (LLMs) subjected to sustained adversarial conditions. We develop a multi-agent geopolitical wargame, the Cerulean Sea Crisis, a synthetic maritime territorial dispute designed to mirror the structural dynamics of Eastern Mediterranean conflicts. Six frontier models (GPT-4o, Llama-4, Mistral-Large, Gemini-3.1-Pro, Qwen3.6-Plus, and DeepSeek-R1) participate in a between-groups experiment (N = 10 games per arm, K = 5 rounds per game) in which the sole manipulation is the language of play (English versus Turkish), producing 586 validated statements. A zero-shot classifier assesses behavioral dispositions along two continuous dimensions: Concession Rate and Coercive Rhetoric. The results are heterogeneous. Llama-4 shows a substantial, Holm-corrected increase in coercive rhetoric under Turkish (delta = +0.800, p = .002), whereas Gemini-3.1-Pro displays an equally large decrease (delta = -0.750, p = .005). DeepSeek-R1 exhibits a similar negative shift (delta = -0.860, p = .006) and provides chain-of-thought evidence consistent with a buffering mechanism. GPT-4o shows no detectable effect (delta = +0.130, p = .614). These findings indicate that cross-lingual behavioral skew is contingent on model architecture and training regime rather than a universal property of Western-origin LLMs. We identify two distinct buffering mechanisms, chain-of-thought institutional anchoring and multilingual RLHF alignment, and discuss their implications for integrating LLMs safely into diplomatic and crisis-management settings.

Warning: This paper contains several toxic and offensive statements. Modern large language models (LLMs) are typically aligned through large-scale post-training to ensure fair and reliable behavior. In this work, we investigate how easily such guardrails can be broken by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We show that one-shot GRPO training on a single biased example is sufficient to induce systematic bias, with stereotype-driven reasoning generalizing across attributes, categories, and benchmarks. We further find that models differ in their susceptibility based on the initial likelihood of producing biased outputs. Our results reveal a critical vulnerability in post-training: alignment can be overridden by a single example.

The ambition behind alignment training is to make large language models safe and useful. The primary mechanisms, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and its direct-optimization variants, shape the behavior of deployed language models by aligning them with ``human values.'' Yet the process is opaque. What values are being encoded; whose values are they; and how does alignment training encode them? A growing body of evidence suggests that these methods produce only functional compliance rather than deep alignment. We offer a mechanistic case study of this phenomenon for partisan political orientation with a comparison of the internal representations of Llama 3.1 8B before and after alignment training. We show that alignment training does not remove the structured partisan direction in the base model. Instead, it compresses the variance of the partisan signal to generate consistently balanced and non-partisan output. Sparse autoencoder decomposition reveals that policy-encoding features, which activate sporadically in the base model, are completely inactive in the Instruct model. Feature-level steering experiments confirm the causal disconnect. Alignment training thus encodes a norm of political neutrality, not by erasing the model's knowledge of partisanship, but by severing the causal pathway from partisan geometry to output generation. Importantly, this neutrality is functional, not structural so that the underlying geometry that enables partisan steering remains intact. The mechanisms that bypass RLHF's guardrails, such as inferring and amplifying a user's partisan identity, reactivate partisan generation. If alignment training operates by disconnecting rather than removing value-laden structure, then the same pattern may hold for other value domains, and the aligned model's behavior may be more fragile than its outputs suggest.

Chinese discriminatory-language detection is challenging because harmful intent is often implicit and context-dependent. We propose MAAM (Myopia--Astigmatism Anchor Mechanism), a lightweight, model-agnostic framework inspired by functional visual blur: rather than preserving every token equally, MAAM retains discrimination-relevant semantic anchors and calibrates them with C--I--S contextual priors (Contextual Tone, Group Identity, and Stance Polarity). We also introduce ChLGBT, to our knowledge the first Chinese LGBT-focused discriminatory-language dataset, with 8,120 manually annotated samples and three ordinal labels: explicit bias, implicit bias, and emotional intensity. Across strong encoder baselines, MAAM improves all three prediction dimensions, with consistent gains in accuracy, F1, Brier score, and expected calibration error. Compared with frontier LLM baselines under zero-shot and few-shot prompting protocols, MAAM remains competitive while offering stronger compactness and stability. These results suggest that interpretable anchor preservation and contextual calibration provide a practical alternative to heavier model scaling for Chinese discriminatory-language assessment.

Large language models are rapicly replacing search engines as the primary interface between people and information. Unlike search engines, which retrieve existing content, LLMs generate novel text shaped by internal representations learned during training. Here we show that partisan political identity is encoded in the model's activation space, and that this direction directly shapes generation. Using 190,491 tweets from sitting members of the U.S. Congress as labeled training data, we train linear probes on the hidden states of the Llama 3.1 8B Instruct model. We identify a single geometric axis at layer 18 that separates Republican from Democratic text with an AUC of 0.945 and a Cohen's d of 1.94, and use sparse autoencoders to decompose that axis into interpretable partisan features. Causally intervening along this axis, ablating or amplifying the partisan component mid-generation, produces systematic shifts in the model's output. We witness stance reversals, register shifting, and structured fabrications of authority. Our results demonstrate that partisan bias in language models is not a vague emergent property but a learned geometric feature that can be precisely located and steered. Partisan bias is not a bug to be patched, but a structural property of how these models encode information about their users. As LLMs displace search engines as the interface to knowledge, understanding that product design (and its consequences) will be essential for navigating the legal, social, and political transitions from an information ecosystem that is curated to one that is generated.

Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences. For example, a user preferring honesty might ask whether to correct a coworker publicly when local norms favor indirect feedback. Yet existing research studies cultural alignment and personalization largely separately. We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences. We find that LLMs vary in how rigidly they enforce cultural norms, with behavior shifted more by country context (7.8%) than age (1%) and gender (0.7%) and shifting non-uniformly after instruction tuning. Furthermore, our five-country human study on PACT shows that culture-following in humans is mainly driven by scenario country, with the lowest agreement when participants judge their own cultural contexts, showing within-culture pluralism. Finally, human-LLM alignment experiments show that models can match majority choices, but fail to capture response distributions and uncertainty (with best correlations reaching only 0.24). Together, these findings motivate alignment evaluations that go beyond majority to capture cultural pluralism and disagreement in social judgment.

Authorship attribution research has traditionally focused on long-form, expressive texts; however, interactions with large language models (LLMs) are typically brief and task-driven prompts. This raises a fundamental question: do such prompts contain a stable, author-identifiable, and distinctive signal? We introduce PromptPrint, a systematic study of prompt-based identity, the hypothesis that a user's habitual vocabulary, syntax, and discourse patterns form a learnable behavioral biometric. Using 20,680 real prompts from 1,034 users, we establish three key findings. First, lexical representations significantly outperform semantic encoders, supporting the "lexical stability hypothesis": identity is primarily encoded in surface-level word choice rather than abstract intent. Second, stylometric features exhibit a "uniqueness-consistency paradox": users are highly distinctive across the population, yet behaviorally inconsistent across contexts. Third, adversarial analysis reveals a clear vulnerability spectrum: identity signals are robust to minor lexical perturbations but degrade substantially under semantic paraphrasing. Overall, our results demonstrate strong identification performance at scale, establishing prompt-based identity as a viable behavioral biometric. This work introduces a new perspective on user modeling in LLM interactions, with important implications for security and privacy. Data and code will be released upon the acceptance of our work.

We ask whether topic sentiment has a causal effect on perceived political ideology, and whether the answer depends on who assigns the ideology label. Using articles from AllSides, paired with shared sentiment annotations from Llama-3.3-70b-versatile, we compare ideology labels from expert human annotators, GPT-4o-mini (baseline and finetuned), and Llama-3.3-70B. We apply Double Machine Learning (DML) and mediation analysis across all four annotation paradigms. Zero-shot LLMs regularly inflate effect sizes relative to human annotations, while fine-tuning often attenuates them back toward the human scale. Our results have implications for the use of LLM annotations as silver labels and as proxies for human judgment in downstream causal analyses: they may be reliable for recovering the presence and direction of effects on the partisan topics, but not their magnitude, leading to over- or under-prediction of some ideology given particular topics.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly assuming an intermediary role in housing search through the integration of listing platforms within conversational interfaces, mediating access to information, search, and recommendations within urban settings. We expand on prior work on racial steering in LLMs by conducting a behavioral audit of seven open-weight and closed-source LLMs across four U.S. cities, testing location recommendations across three iterative prompting conditions that progressively add lifestyle preference context and reflect fair housing paired-testing methodologies. We find that steering is an emergent behavior of the model's interpretive license rather than primarily a static property. Steering results from the interaction of a user's identity, preference articulation, and the spatial logic that a model has internalized about learned representations of place, preference, and opportunity in a given city, and how different types of users relate to it. While steering was present, it was not uniform in direction or magnitude across evaluated conditions. Preference-conditioned testing often increased or reconfigured the number of models that exhibited steering behaviors relative to baseline conditions, suggesting that LLMs may interpret what the same housing preference means differently depending on the racial identity of the user. Our findings also demonstrate that the city is not a neutral testing unit for LLM evaluation in place-based sectors, and results from one local market cannot be assumed to generalize to another. Local and domain expertise will be required in the housing sector to ensure that legal and institutional commitments to fair housing are not undermined while adopting AI tools that mediate spatial access.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to align with people's preferences and values. However, this method has known limitations: it aggregates conflicting preferences, often relies on unrepresentative samples, and uses only binary comparisons. Analysing 1,500 open-ended responses from the PRISM dataset across 75 countries, we examine what people actually want from AI systems and reveal concrete failures of current methods. We find that different people want different things: most values are requested by fewer than a quarter of respondents, with truthfulness the sole exception at 49%. Furthermore, the same words hide divergent meanings: when people describe what they mean by "truthfulness", they reveal distinct, potentially incompatible, epistemological bases, as some ask for sourced claims, some for expert opinions, and some even ask for unpopular views. Certain capabilities, namely how human-like a model behaves, and some features, like AI guardrails, are outright controversial, with some desiring them and others rejecting them. We additionally find that people often use contextual distinctions (what AI should do "by default" versus "if requested") that binary comparisons cannot capture. These findings expose fundamental problems in current alignment practices. When 49% request truthfulness but define it differently, this is unlikely to be captured by a single reward model. The persistence of high hallucination rates in well-funded models, despite users' clear demands for accuracy, suggests that current methods fail to identify actual preferences. This paper sheds light on the situated, contested, imperfect signals that are currently being flattened into universal preference models, a practice others have characterised as epistemic violence.

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Stance detection on social media is challenging due to short, noisy, and context-dependent language. While large language models (LLMs) show zero-shot generalization, they are typically prompted without contextual information, which limits their ability to interpret ambiguous posts. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of incorporating real-world (e.g., user biographies), derived (e.g., political party), and LLM-generated (e.g., target descriptions) contextual features into zero-shot prompting for stance detection on Twitter. Our evaluation spans four benchmark datasets, including a new high-quality German Twitter stance dataset. Across multiple LLMs, we find that integrating contextual information improves performance, but only under specific conditions. LLM-generated target descriptions consistently enhance accuracy, while other user metadata has mixed or even detrimental effects. Notably, we show that the inclusion of other tweets by the same user, often beneficial in supervised learning, can impair performance due to input noise. Our qualitative analysis reveals that LLMs struggle to distinguish task-specific useful information from irrelevant context. Our findings highlight both the promise and challenges of prompting with context information in noisy real-world settings. We publish code and data at this \href{https://github.com/tilmanbeck/stance-context-twitter}{page}.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used, including in political applications, but their political fairness has been little studied. We assess it using perplexity, posing that a fair model should give equal probability to all political groups. However, we find, across ten LLMs and three datasets covering 37 languages, that LLMs are more perplexed by the texts of far right and nationalist parties than of social-democratic parties. We find this to be consistent with previous work on translation fairness, to the point that perplexity correlates with downstream translation metrics. Our method is applicable to both base LLMs as well as their instruction-tuned counterpart, and we find that both are highly correlated, suggesting that the political fairness of LLMs stems from their pretraining, and is hardly affected by instruction-tuning.

Modern language models rely on pretraining filters to remove undesirable content from training corpora and inference-time guardrails to suppress undesirable outputs during deployment. In this paper, we examine how these filtering and moderation decisions produce forms of epistemic erasure and reveal tensions both across automated systems and between these systems and human judgment. We audit four pretraining filters and three inference-time guardrails on Common Crawl sentences containing gender and regional-origin mentions, together with a manually annotated subset of 500 sentences. Our analysis shows that filtering and guardrail decisions are strongly associated with blocklist-based lexical cues, while frequently failing to flag content containing private information or explicit hate speech. At the same time, marginalized groups, particularly transgender people, women, and Central Americans, are significantly over-flagged across systems. Human annotators, by contrast, would retain 88.5% of filter-flagged and 91.3% of guardrail-flagged content, often recognizing representational harms arising from tensions of content removal that current systems fail to capture. Taken together, our findings document a form of epistemic erasure in which mentions of marginalized groups are disproportionately removed before pretraining and additionally suppressed again at inference time.

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.

LLM-governed social robots increasingly decide who receives real-world assistance first. As prioritization norms vary across cultures by age, status, and group size, failure to calibrate pluralistically can scale into unequal access. Yet LLM moral audits remain English-centered, rarely test embodied contexts, leaving pluralistic calibration as an urgent diagnostic gap amid intensifying LLM-robot deployment. We introduce a gradient-based audit framework for multilingual evaluation of LLM moral trade-off behavior against cultural preference gradients. Grounded in nine cross-domain social robotics reviews (>8,000 papers), we derive symmetry-controlled scenarios across care, education, and services, translating the Moral Machine Experiment's "whom to spare" into "whom to assist first" dilemmas with preserved identity trade-offs (many vs. few; young vs. old; higher vs. lower status). We audit four LLMs across four country-language pairs in four prompting regimes (57,600 decisions), benchmarked against country-specific MME preference gradients. Ordinal concordance tests whether models differentiate cultural contexts; a governance typology maps vulnerabilities in gradient differentiation, directional tendency, and deliberation. We find persistent, culturally asymmetric gradient tracking failures that prompting alone cannot reliably correct: quality calibration is nearly twice as strong for Western-language decisions as for Chinese and Japanese; high determinism in majority-first trade-offs often erases cross-cultural gradients; partial sensitivity to age- and status-based norms risks sidelining minorities. Prompting effects are uneven; only contrastive exemplars yield consistent gains, while reasoning-only prompts can worsen tracking. Our results motivate multilingual, pluralistic audits as an LLM-robot pre-deployment gate and suggest model factors are a more robust lever than prompting alone.

The language used by digital chat assistants such as ChatGPT can diverge from human expectations (misalignment). Research, mostly on Scientific English, has described both what divergences occur and, to some extent, why, linking them to the training stage of human preference learning. Yet, existing approaches rely on manual curation. This paper introduces two curation-free, assumption-light evaluation metrics: the Lexical Alignment Score, which identifies lexical overuse, and the Triangulated Preference Shift, which quantifies how much of such shifts can be attributed to human preference learning. Using PubMed abstracts, continuations were generated and measured using windowed document prevalence across six model families (Falcon, Gemma, Llama, Mistral, OLMo, Yi). The procedure identifies, without manual intervention, overused items such as 'suggest', 'additionally', and 'strategy', and estimates their link to preference learning. Our findings replicate prior work and remain stable across parameter settings, random seeds, and evaluation on further data. The approach scales readily and enables systematic study of lexical (mis)alignment beyond Scientific English and across languages, and as such, the metrics have the potential to contribute to improved alignment for future models and understanding of its origins.

LLMs have evolved from basic chatbots to the backbone of the AI ecosystem, now widely used in healthcare, schools, and government services. The domain-wide adoption of LLMs necessitates continuous evaluation to ensure their safety and fairness. Common issues encountered after deploying LLMs include inconsistent outputs and hallucinations of incorrect information. Although numerous LLM evaluation tools exist, most are limited to testing a single parameter at a time or require massive computational resources that are not accessible to most researchers. TriEval addresses these challenges by evaluating LLM outputs across multiple parameters, including bias, toxicity, and truthfulness together, while minimizing computing resources. The pipeline is compatible with both open- and closed-source models and runs on a standard laptop without a GPU cluster. TriEval has been tested on four models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Gemma 2 9B, and Claude Haiku. The results show clear differences between open-source and closed-source models, especially in terms of toxicity and truthfulness. TriEval is being released as open source to enable broader access for researchers with limited computational resources.

Recommender systems have grown from content-organization tools into sophisticated systems that shape daily behavior. By controlling what we see, they shape what we perceive, raising concerns about filter bubbles, radicalization, polarization, and social inequality. Large language models (LLMs) enable more powerful personalization, intensifying these dynamics. Yet most recommenders are tuned for engagement or limited accuracy metrics, with little attention to broader social implications, e.g. how personalization reshapes exposure in socially consequential domains. We investigate whether LLM-assisted reranking, while improving personalization, inadvertently amplifies exposure to ideologically extreme or conspiratorial political content, a risk theorized but not empirically characterized in news recommendation. Using real news-consumption histories, we rerank YouTube's sidebar candidates through zero-shot, instruction-based prompting. We compare a baseline prompt with a constrained variant that preserves topical relevance and broadens ideological exposure while reducing conspiratorial or extreme content. Without constraints, reranking strengthened personalization but increased exposure to conspiratorial and extremist material for users whose histories contained such content. Lightweight prompt-level regularization reduced promotion of extreme content and increased ideological diversity, with modest relevance loss. Synthetic experiments suggest that LLMs rerank via statistical regularities in language rather than semantic understanding of ideology, clarifying why naive prompts amplify these patterns and why regularization can reshape them. Together, our results highlight the power of LLMs to operationalize contextual nuance in high-stakes recommendation, and the need to evaluate LLM-assisted personalization beyond accuracy and treat prompt design as a value-laden rather than neutral default.

Conversational tutoring agents have been shown to improve learning engagement and student outcomes, and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in these systems to provide scalable, personalized feedback. However, LLMs may perpetuate or amplify stereotypical social biases, posing particular risks in educational settings. In this study, we evaluate LLMs in conversational tutoring scenarios to identify high-confidence social biases, instances where models are unable to identify biased judgments in tutoring conversations while maintaining strong confidence in their assessments, potentially affecting their reasoning and the feedback they provide to learners. We present a new dataset generation method that enables bias evaluation under naturalistic instructional conditions by regenerating student-AI tutor interactions and introducing turns with controlled bias derived from a benchmark dataset. Using this data, we assess multiple LLMs' ability to detect stereotypical biases and analyze the confidence and reasoning underlying their responses through computational and human evaluations. We find that bias detection is substantially more challenging in conversational tutoring contexts than in benchmark-based evaluations, and that state-of-the-art LLMs are overconfident in their incorrect assessments of stereotypical bias statements. Moreover, model confidence strongly influences reasoning and feedback, highlighting the risks of overconfident, biased behavior in LLM-based tutoring agents. We conclude by discussing implications, mitigation considerations, and directions for future research.

Despite being home to more than 1300 ethnic groups and 700 indigenous languages, bias in Large Language Models has not been fully studied in Indonesia, thus leaving a critical gap in evaluating representational fairness and localized stereotypes within its uniquely vast, multilingual, and diverse sociocultural landscape. To address this, we introduce IndoBias as a culturally-grounded bias benchmark to assess LLMs bias in Indonesian and three local languages: Javanese, Sundanese, and Makasar. IndoBias features dual perspective evaluation tracks: depth-oriented (with contrastive-pairs) and breadth-oriented (with generation-based), where the latter is grounded in social science frameworks (SPI, O*NET, and WGI). Our results show that existing LLMs -- particularly decoder models -- exhibit strong bias towards prototypical sentences in Indonesian, while local languages suffer higher bias under Ideology and Religion category. We also find that LLMs responses exhibit a non-uniform Stereotype Polarity when prompted with various local entities. Finally, we discover that, in Indonesian, Common Crawl texts introduce more bias during pretraining, compared to human-reviewed article texts (e.g., Wikipedia, News), whereas introducing local languages to pretraining generally increases bias. This work highlights the importance of studying bias in culture-specific context. Warning: This paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.

Current approaches to aligning large language models (LLMs) aggregate diverse human preferences into a single reward signal, effectively optimizing for a hypothetical ``average user'' who represents no real person particularly well. This position paper argues that LLMs should learn personalized, individual preferences rather than aggregated ones. We show that aggregation masks critical information about preference diversity, individual values, and contextual dependencies, which is a limitation both theoretically grounded in social choice theory and empirically evident across demographic groups. We analyze the rich structure that human preferences encode, survey technical approaches to personalization, and systematically address counterarguments on scalability, shared standards, and manipulation risk. While personalization introduces genuine safety challenges including filter bubbles, value lock-in, and psychological manipulation, we argue these are manageable through bounded personalization frameworks that preserve universal safety constraints while accommodating legitimate individual variation. We conclude with a concrete research and policy agenda for developing preference-aware models that respect both individual autonomy and collective safety.

Various language domains have undergone remarkable changes in recent years; these shifts are largely attributed to the advent of Large Language Models and their misalignment with natural language usage. These misalignments are thought to partly originate in the preference-learning stage, e.g. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, which generally makes models more useful but simultaneously may introduce systematic lexical bias. In terms of lexical behavior, this is visible in a model's preference for certain formats or the overuse of words (delve, furthermore), even when such patterns are not present in base model outputs. Research on lexical misalignment induced during preference training is constrained by reliance on manual curation. We address this, by introducing the Triangulated Preference Shift score, a metric that triangulates between human gold standards, base models, and instruct variants to isolate shifts induced specifically by preference learning, without manual curation. We provide data across six model families, anchor the results in the literature, and illustrate the general approach's utility by analyzing whether preference learning shifts models toward what could be interpreted as a "language of prestige". The metric provides an initial automated method to quantify behavioral shifts attributable to preference tuning, and thus, may help inform model alignment and development of trustworthy AI.

We audit six large language models (LLMs) for gender stereotyping across English, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. Three were developed primarily for English-language use (Claude, GPT, Gemini) and three for East Asian use (DeepSeek, Syn-Pro, HyperCLOVA X). We adopt the HEXACO-100 personality inventory and anchor each model against a cross-cultural human dataset spanning 48 countries to ask not whether LLMs are biased, but how far their gender attributions drift from the populations they are deployed among. Our findings show that their stereotyping spans a range roughly 2.5 times wider than the entire cross-country range found in humans, and the effect can compound across languages. One English-centric model, prompted in Korean, reached 5 times the local baseline, even when the prompt stated the candidate had already been hired, which often dampens human stereotyping. To characterize such behaviors without ranking them, we introduce a four-pattern framework -- concordance, suppression, reorganization, and amplification -- across 24 (model x language) cells. Item-level analysis reveals that translation does not just rescale stereotypes, but changes the attributes tied to it, hiding significant rearrangement under the surface while appearing well-calibrated. Our results ultimately suggest that no single debiasing pipeline is likely to address bias evenly across linguistic boundaries.

Large language models (LLMs) can reveal and amplify societal biases during chain-of-thought (CoT) generation. We present COFT (Chain of Fair Thought), a training-free decoding method that applies token-level fairness control at decode time, with distribution-free marginal validity guarantees (under exchangeability) for any frozen causal language model. COFT operates in three stages. First, it creates a masked counterfactual prompt by replacing sensitive spans with neutral tokens. Second, it compares the factual and masked logit distributions through lightweight logit fusion to attenuate attribute-driven biases. Third, it uses dual-branch split-conformal calibration to certify per-step candidate token sets at a user-chosen risk level. We evaluate COFT across six models and multiple bias benchmarks. Our method reduces standard bias metrics by 30-55% (median 38%) while preserving task utility and language quality. Reasoning accuracies remain unchanged within run-to-run noise margins. The computational overhead is modest, equivalent to one additional cached forward pass (<=11%). COFT offers a clear, auditable path to safer CoT generation with significant bias reduction, negligible utility loss, and no requirement for retraining, auxiliary classifiers, or weight access.

Third-person singular pronouns have long been used to study stereotypical biases in language models and to test their abilities to reason about reference. More recently, the interplay between reasoning and bias has been investigated with the task of pronoun fidelity, which assesses models' abilities to correctly reuse a previously-specified pronoun for a discourse entity, independent of other potentially distracting discourse entities mentioned in between. However, such research focuses on English, which is a language with limited grammatical gender and almost no gender agreement. In this paper we contribute a novel, large-scale dataset, GRUFF, to measure pronoun fidelity in German, covering four different gender agreement systems in nouns, and four sets of pronouns. With this dataset, we show that LLMs show strong grammatical agreement for masculine and feminine entities in the absence of explicit context, but not for neopronouns xier and en. Models are generally not robust to distractors, but encoder-only models are more robust in German than in English, reflecting the importance of grammatical gender. Finally, we show that occupational stereotypes in this context are poorly correlated across grammatical cases, and across most models, except ones with closely related architectures. We release all code and data to encourage further work on gender-inclusive language and referential reasoning in German.

LLM-powered social agents are increasingly used to simulate online social behavior, yet their realism remains difficult to validate. Existing work has largely relied on general-purpose benchmarks, while less attention has been paid to short, reactive discourse such as audience replies to online news. In this paper, we evaluate whether LLM-generated reactions to Spanish online news reproduce measurable properties of real audience discourse. Using the Hatemedia dataset, we pair 5,631 news items with 58,555 real audience reactions, and generate a matched synthetic dataset using five LLMs under a shared experimental setting. We compare real and synthetic reactions across three dimensions: hate speech, sentiment, and semantic alignment, considering both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned generation. Results show that off-the-shelf models are poor proxies for real audience reactions: they strongly underproduce hate speech, introduce model-specific sentiment biases, and remain distributionally distant from human replies. Fine-tuning improves fidelity unevenly. Qwen3 provides the most balanced approximation, while Mistral7B achieves the strongest sentiment and semantic alignment but overshoots hate prevalence. Plausible synthetic replies do not necessarily reproduce the distributional properties of public discourse.

Prompt-based personality control is a key technique for designing large language model (LLM) dialogue agents that behave consistently across social contexts. However, specifying Big Five personality traits (BFTs) in a prompt does not ensure that the intended traits are expressed in generated utterances. This paper investigates this mismatch from an interactionist perspective, viewing personality expression as a context-dependent outcome shaped by the interplay between trait specification and situational factors. We analyze how perceived BFT expression in LLM-generated dialogue is influenced by three prompt factors: personality traits, dialogue roles, and expressive styles. Using a factorial design that combines six personality conditions, three roles, and three expressive-style conditions, we generate 1,080 LLM-agent dialogues in each of English and Japanese. We then evaluate the target agent's utterances using an LLM-as-a-judge framework to estimate expressed Big Five traits. The results show that expressed personality is shaped not only by explicit trait specification, but also by dialogue role and expressive style. These effects are trait-specific: dialogue role strongly influences Openness, expressive style substantially shapes Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and explicit trait specification dominates Neuroticism. Even without explicit personality-trait specification, social and expressive conditions induce distinct personality-like impressions. Cross-linguistic comparisons show broadly similar patterns between English and Japanese dialogues, with noticeable differences only under specific combinations of personality, role, and expressive style. These findings suggest that personality control in LLM agents should be understood not as a direct consequence of trait prompting, but as a context-dependent process involving personality specification, social role, and expressive style.

Bias evaluation for language models has made substantial progress on bounded comparisons, such as overt derogation, stereotype association, or label-sensitive differences under controlled substitutions. Open-ended explanations raise a different problem: they guide interpretation by assigning responsibility, legitimacy, context, and grievance. A model can avoid hostile language while making one side structurally understandable and another personally at fault, overreacting, or less worth taking seriously. We call this stance-bearing asymmetry in generative explanations. We propose Symmetry Decomposition Evaluation (SDE), which tests paired situations with concrete group labels, structural-role rewrites, and explicit support or counter-evidence. In a controlled 32-family prototype suite, this decomposition shows that surface differences are not all alike: some weaken under structural or evidence control, while others remain as stable differences in how the model assigns blame, context, or legitimacy. Targeted case review and judge comparison suggest a broader difficulty for evaluating open-ended framing asymmetries: judge readings shift across operationalizations, and scalar scores can flatten distinctions that readers use to interpret explanatory stance. SDE therefore reframes generative bias evaluation as an audit of explanatory stance -- what stance each side receives, how it changes under decomposition, and where automatic scoring becomes unstable.