Large Language Model Bias

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard method to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences. In this work, we introduce alignment tampering, a potential vulnerability where the LLM undergoing alignment influences the preference dataset, causing RLHF to amplify undesired behaviors. This arises from core limitations of RLHF: (1) preference datasets are constructed from the LLM's own outputs, allowing it to influence them, and (2) pairwise comparisons only indicate which response is better, not why. These limitations can be exploited to cause alignment tampering. For example, if an LLM generates biased responses with higher quality, annotators will prefer them based on quality. However, preference labels do not distinguish quality from bias, and the reward model inherits this limitation. Optimizing such rewards through reinforcement learning or best-of-N sampling can amplify misaligned biases. Our experiments demonstrate amplification across diverse biases: from keyword bias to propaganda (e.g., sexism), brand promotion, and instrumental goal-seeking. Mitigation remains challenging, as existing techniques for robust RLHF fail to fully resolve alignment tampering without sacrificing response quality. These findings reveal structural vulnerabilities of current RLHF and emphasize the need to prevent this vulnerability. Project page: https://alignment-tampering.github.io/

We argue, with systematic empirical evidence, that a large language model's political ideology is not a fixed point, but a conditional distribution $\mathbb{P}($position$\mid$context$)$ over a real political space. We evaluate nine current LLMs using a unified measurement framework anchored by VAA-CHES projection models, which map responses onto three validated dimensions (lrgen, lrecon, galtan) across six contextual axes. Our findings reveal high sensitivity to context: persuasive framing and under-represented languages displace coordinates by up to 0.57 and 0.52 units, respectively, while chain-of-thought reasoning often amplifies rather than dampens paraphrase instability. Despite this local plasticity, the model cohort occupies a remarkably narrow Overton envelope overall, occupying roughly one-third the spread of major European parties. Supported by a multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) analysis, we conclude that a single point cannot summarize LLM political behavior; it must be characterized as a shape. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/sakhadib/LLM-Ideoplasticity.

\begin{quote} The biases in Large Language Models' (LLMs) outputs remain inadequately theorised, particularly from the perspective of the Global South. This article reports on a small-scale exploratory study in which identical prompts were submitted to four major LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Copilot), firstly, prompting for stories using names suggestive of specific racial and gender communities, and secondly asking questions about `development'. Drawing on critical AI scholarship and postcolonial theory, we argue that LLM outputs are patterned in ways that reproduce racial hierarchies, gender asymmetries, and Western-centric epistemic frameworks. We argue that these biases are insidious: they operate below the threshold of both obvious error and overt prejudice, and instead are subtly embedded in narrative structure and emotional template. Simply put, women, in LLM narratives have rich interior lives, while men make plans. Black people face hardships while white people navigate the world with agency. And explanations as to the economic world order fail to consider Southern explanations. The models perform plausibility while reproducing dominance. We conclude that universities require structural critique of these technologies rather than unreflective adoption, and that critical AI literacy must engage seriously with questions of whose knowledge systems are reproduced and legitimated, or marginalised and undermined.

Hate speech annotation is costly, subjective, and prone to annotator disagreement, making large-scale dataset construction challenging. We systematically analyze how well large language models (LLMs) align with human judgments across ten theoretically grounded subjective attributes, such as dehumanization, violence, and sentiment, evaluating both small and large variants of Llama 3.1 and Qwen 2.5. Our analysis reveals a consistent split across all models: behaviorally explicit dimensions (insult, humiliate, attack-defend) correlate strongly with human annotations, while evaluative dimensions (respect, sentiment, hate speech) are systematically inverted. Demographic persona conditioning reduces model confidence without improving alignment. Building on these insights, we propose combining attribute-level LLM predictions via a confidence-weighted Ridge regression to reconstruct continuous hate speech scores from the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, achieving $R^2$ of up to 0.71 and outperforming direct prompting baselines, demonstrating that structured attribute decomposition recovers a richer and more human-aligned signal than end-to-end label prediction alone.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit homogenized cultural perspectives. While the World Values Survey (WVS) provides a gold standard for mapping human values, traditional direct prompting of LLMs on WVS often fails to access the model's latent cultural depth, leading to safety-aligned refusals or neutral responses. Here, we propose a generalizable framework for cultural evaluation and intervention that transitions from abstract queries to scenario-based behavioral probing. By extracting implicit token probabilities across 300 situational dilemmas, we bypass surface-level alignment to map the latent coordinates of LLMs cultural value. We further introduce activation steering to shift these internal alignments during the forward pass without retraining. Across multiple LLMs, we find substantial variation in adaptability and uncover a consistent phenomenon of latent entanglement, where interventions along one cultural dimension induce shifts along another. These results suggest that cultural values are encoded as coupled structures, limiting precise alignment. This work establishes a computationally efficient framework for cultural steering, highlighting the structural complexities when navigating global value with LLMs.

Language models (LMs) can exhibit biases based on variations in their dialects, even in the absence of a dialect label, a behavior known as covert dialect bias. In this work, we quantify covert dialect bias in online discourse by evaluating how LMs associate stereotypical traits (derived from social psychology research on racial bias) with intent-equivalent tweets in Standard American English (SAE) and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). While prior work shows that LMs associate more negative stereotypes with AAVE when evaluating tweets in isolation, we are surprised to find that this bias is significantly exacerbated when SAE / AAVE tweet pairs are compared side by side, a setting that more closely reflects high-impact decision making contexts in which models are used to rank candidates. The bias only worsens when dialect labels are explicitly specified. This is striking, given the extensive efforts from commercial developers to mitigate bias in their LMs. Encouragingly, we show that counterfactual fairness finetuning can mitigate covert dialect bias for some stereotypical traits, reducing average disparities when evaluating tweets in isolation, however, these improvements do not consistently hold across traits when evaluating SAE / AAVE tweets side by side. Our findings show that existing evaluation settings for covert dialect bias may underestimate its severity, specifically in contrastive settings. Additionally, overt dialect bias remains pronounced even after safety aligned finetuning, indicating that it remains an unresolved problem, and motivates the need for more robust evaluation and mitigation frameworks.

As large language models become a default source of guidance on personal, moral, and existential questions, it matters whether they draw on the religious frameworks that have historically shaped such reasoning, or systematically omit them. In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all? In contrast to benchmarks that look for the presence of political leanings or social bias, we look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs. We term this ``omissive bias.'' To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions, sourced from in-the-wild chat transcripts and faith-community contributors, paired with an LLM-as-judge rubric that gives full credit for any mention of a religion, a religious practice, or a religious leader. The questions are not themselves about religion--they are open-ended questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, purpose, and honesty, where religion is one valuable perspective among several. We also run a human-subjects survey to compare LLM behavior against human expectations. Evaluating 27 models, we find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations. The omission is asymmetric: models invoke religion more readily for abstract existential questions (meaning, death, truth) than for the practical personal situations--grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction--where many people most rely on it. It is not our purpose to adjudicate which values LLMs should hold. We argue, more modestly, that current LLM responses overlook critical opportunities to reflect religious frameworks that many people draw on when navigating personal and ethical challenges.

It has generally been assumed that geopolitical bias in language models originates from the training data used during the pre-training phase. We tested seven open-weight LLM pairs consisting of the base model (pre-training only) and the chat model (pre-training and post-training) from seven labs on a paired-scenario forced-choice probe over 28 country pairs in English, French, and Chinese, and found that geopolitical bias originates in post-training rather than in pre-training. Across seven AI labs, six showed shifts in the direction associated with the country or region of the model developer after post-training. This shift is strongest in Alibaba's Qwen 2.5: while the base is neutral on China-favourability (-0.15 log-odds, p=0.15), the post-trained chat variant is at +2.91 (p<10^-4), an 18x shift in odds. We also observe shifts in biases toward other countries across all models. Additionally, the magnitude of this shift depends on the language used to prompt the model: the French-made Mistral becomes pro-France only under French prompting (FR-EN shift +1.91, p<10^-4). These findings suggest that geopolitical preferences in language models are not simply inherited from large-scale internet data but are actively shaped during post-training, highlighting the need for greater transparency, auditing, and oversight of alignment processes that influence how models represent nations, cultures, and political perspectives.

The integration of large language models into political discourse analysis creates new opportunities for comparative research, policy analysis, and civic technology, while introducing material risks for democratic accountability. This paper argues that cultural adaptation is a prerequisite for trustworthy deployment of large language models in political communication across diverse linguistic and institutional contexts. Current systems remain shaped by English dominant data, uneven multilingual coverage, and assumptions grounded in a narrow range of political institutions and discourse conventions, producing systematic errors when applied across cultures. We formalize cultural adaptation across translation, discourse, and ontology levels, identify recurring cultural failure modes in political NLP, and propose an operational evaluation matrix grounded in cultural fidelity, calibration, and democratic safety. Building on political text analysis, sociotechnical auditing, and cross cultural pragmatics, we outline methodological pathways including participatory dataset development, culturally aware transfer learning, and benchmark design that makes cultural adaptation empirically measurable. We conclude by clarifying governance constraints and scope conditions under which culturally adaptive political NLP can support democratic legitimacy.

We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically. The answer is no. When asked for advice on hypothetical faith transitions from religion A->B vs. religion B->A , models exhibited consistent asymmetries, favoring some religions while subtly discouraging conversion to others. On average Catholic, Bahá'í, and Sikh religions were broadly favored (high support for joining, low support for leaving), while Atheists, Agnostics, and Jehovah's Witnesses were primarily disfavored. Patterns varied by model size and model provider, with Grok 4.20 exhibiting the strongest asymmetries. We tested 20 commercial and open-source language models across 182 religion pairings using a human-verified LLM-as-judge framework. Each model was probed via interactions with a simulated user asking for advice on a potential faith conversion. Models tended to use more encouraging language for some faith transitions over others; these patterns were systematically repeatable across multiple trials. All LLMs tested exhibited reproducible asymmetry, though the pattern of preferences differed for each. Overall preferences persist across multiple question phrasings and variations in the religious pairing dataset. Taken together, these results suggest that asymmetry is a robust property of model behavior rather than an artifact of how the models' answers were scored. It is important to consider that any imbalances deployed and reproduced at scale can have real-world implications.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political bias across a variety of sensitive contexts. We find that LLMs handle counterpart topics from opposing political sides asymmetrically. We refer to this phenomenon as covert political bias and identify 7 categories of techniques through which it operates. We propose two metrics for covert bias: Sentiment Consistency measures symmetry in rhetoric and framing across paired political prompts; Helpfulness Consistency measures symmetric depth and engagement. To reduce both types of covert bias, we introduce Political Consistency Training (PCT), an RL training method with two complementary paradigms: Sentiment Consistency Training and Helpfulness Consistency Training. We show that PCT preserves overall helpfulness, substantially reduces covert political bias, and generalizes to held-out benchmarks. We release our work at https://political-manipulation.ai

Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation. We ask whether the polarity of prior conversation history biases subsequent judgments, an effect we call the accumulated message effect on LLM judgments (AMEL). Across 84,088 API calls to 12 models from 5 providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, and four open-source models), we present identical test items in isolation or following histories saturated with predominantly positive or negative evaluations. Models shift toward the conversation's prevailing polarity (d = -0.17, p < 10^-53). The effect concentrates on items where the model is genuinely uncertain at baseline (d = -0.36 for high-entropy items, vs d = -0.15 when the baseline is deterministic). Bias does not grow with context length: 5 prior turns and 50 produce the same shift (Spearman |r| < 0.01; OLS slope p = 0.80). And there is a negativity asymmetry: paired per item, negative histories induce 1.52x more bias than positive (t = 13.03, p < 10^-36, n = 2,733). Scaling helps but does not solve it (Anthropic: Haiku -0.22 to Opus -0.17; OpenAI: Nano -0.34 to GPT-5.2 -0.17). Three follow-ups narrow the mechanism. The token probability distribution shifts continuously, not at a threshold. The negativity asymmetry has both token-level and semantic components, though attributing the balance is exploratory at our sample sizes. Position does not matter: five biased turns anywhere in a 50-turn history produce the same shift. The simplest fix for evaluation pipelines is a fresh context per item; when batching is unavoidable, balancing the history helps.

Assessing progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires multi-step reasoning over visual cues, contextual knowledge, and development indicators, where incomplete evidence use and imperfect evidence integration can introduce hidden prediction biases. Real-world SDG monitoring further spans both qualitative judgments and quantitative estimation. However, existing benchmarks typically evaluate these aspects in isolation, obscuring systematic biases that emerge when models substitute priors for evidence. To address this gap, we propose SDGBiasBench, a large-scale benchmark suite for SDG-oriented vision-language reasoning. Spanning 500k expert-involved multiple-choice questions and 50k regression tasks, the benchmark enables comprehensive assessment of both decision-level and estimation-level bias in Vision--Language Models (VLMs). Evaluations on SDGBiasBench reveal an intrinsic SDG bias in current VLMs, where predictions are frequently driven by SDG specific priors rather than reliable multi-modal cues. To mitigate such bias, we propose CADE (Contrastive Adaptive Debias Ensemble), a training-free, plug-and-play method that leverages modality-specific answer priors. CADE yields significant gains on the proposed benchmark, improving multiple-choice accuracy by up to 25% and reducing regression MAE by up to 12 points across multiple VLMs. We hope our work can foster the development of more fair and reliable AI systems for sustainable development.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive settings despite substantial documentation that they encode gender biases. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been proposed as a bias-mitigation approach. However, existing evaluations primarily focus on changes in LLM benchmark performance, providing limited insight into whether apparent bias reductions reflect meaningful changes in a model's internal mechanisms. In this work, we investigate how CoT prompting affects gender bias in LLMs, combining benchmark-based evaluation with mechanistic interpretability techniques and reasoning chain failure analysis. Our results confirm a stereotypical bias present in LLM outputs across benchmarks, showing that CoT prompting does not consistently reduce the bias gap. Mechanistic analyses reveal that although CoT balances biased behavior in certain attention head clusters, gender bias remains embedded in hidden representations, indicating only superficial mitigation. Inspection of reasoning chains further suggests that these improvements stem from memorization and familiarity with the dataset rather than genuine understanding of bias.

Social roles shape expectations, priorities, and judgments, yet it remains unclear how large language models (LLMs) associate occupational identities with broader cultural value patterns. Prior work used nationality-based cultural prompting to study how LLM responses to value-survey questions align with human cultural benchmarks. In this paper, we extend that framework by replacing cultural prompting with occupational prompting to examine how professional-role cues influence value-survey responses in open-weight LLMs. Using a survey-grounded evaluation pipeline based on questions from the Integrated Values Surveys, we project model responses into the two-dimensional Inglehart--Welzel cultural space. We prompt open-weight LLMs to answer questions under occupational identities such as accountant, teacher, engineer, and nurse, and then analyze how these occupation-conditioned responses are positioned on the cultural map. Our results show that when open-weight LLMs are prompted with occupations rather than national identities, their responses remain within a broadly Western-leaning region of the cultural map. However, different occupations introduce shifts within this region, producing distinct occupational skews. This indicates that occupational prompts are not treated as neutral role labels, but instead elicit structured value patterns. These findings extend survey-based evaluation of cultural bias beyond nationality-based prompting and provide a framework for studying how occupational personas shape value expression in LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political biases in voter simulations, but their underlying mechanisms and cross-lingual generalizations remain poorly understood. We introduce Dynamo-K, a census-grounded simulation framework evaluating Korean-language LLM political behavior across four models on six Korean elections (2017-2025). Using this framework, we identify three systematic failure modes: (1) progressive bias in moderate agents, where explicit mitigation reduces Mean Absolute Error (MAE) by 5.2 times; (2) model-dependent third-party salience collapse, distinguishing between salience failure and decision bias; and (3) regional polarization collapse, where models bidirectionally under-predict historical party strongholds. To address these failures, we demonstrate that scenario reframing recovers 62% of 2017 MAE by restoring third-party visibility. Furthermore, we introduce a learned reweighting adapter that successfully calibrates opposing-valence models without relying on candidate names at train or test time. Validating our diagnostic framework, Dynamo-K accurately predicts 3/3 presidential winners - including a 2.1%p MAE on the highly contested 0.73%p-margin 2022 race - and correctly identifies the dominant party in a held-out local election. The pipeline is open-source and provides a scalable, cost-effective method for diagnosing LLM political behavior.

Power differences shape human communication through well documented socio cognitive effects, including language coordination, pronoun usage, authority bias, and harmful compliance. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar behaviors when assigned high or low status personas. Using personas from diverse professions, we simulate multi turn, power asymmetric dialogues (e.g., principal teacher, justice lawyer) and measure (i) language coordination, (ii) pronoun usage, (iii) persuasion success, and (iv) compliance with unsafe requests. Our results show that LLMs show key socio-cognitive effects of power, albeit with nuances and variability, linking simulated interactions to both desirable and unsafe behaviors.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation. However, the robustness of these models against subtle linguistic variations, specifically stigmatizing language (SL) commonly found in human-authored clinical notes, remains critically under-explored. In this work, we investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text. We systematically evaluate nine frontier LLMs across four stigmatized medical conditions, utilizing clinical vignettes injected with varying intensities and phenotypes of SL (doubt, blame, and maligning). Our results demonstrate that all evaluated models exhibit substantial bias, with clinical decision-making significantly skewed towards less aggressive patient management. Notably, we observe a high sensitivity to linguistic framing, where a single SL sentence is sufficient to alter model outputs, revealing a clear dose-response relationship. Furthermore, we evaluate standard prompt-based mitigation strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and model self-debiasing. These approaches show limited efficacy; models struggle to explicitly identify SL while remaining implicitly influenced by it. Our findings expose a critical vulnerability in current LLMs regarding fairness and robustness in clinical NLP, underscoring the need for rigorous algorithmic guardrails to prevent the automation of health disparities.

Deployed language models are evaluated in a non-stationary environment: model versions, retrieval layers, safety systems, and real-world inputs all change over time. Static bias benchmarks remain useful, but they do not show how models frame newly emerging events for different prompted audiences. We introduce GPF-LIVENEWS, a streaming evaluation protocol and benchmark snapshot for auditing group-conditioned framing in open-ended LLM outputs. The protocol expands fresh BBC/Reuters news anchors across 42 identity labels and seven prompt families, then evaluates response bundles using semantic-sensitivity and sentiment-disparity signals. In a pilot over 12 monitoring runs and 23 hosted models, Policy/Action prompts produce the strongest semantic movement, while sentiment variation is flatter across dimensions and prompt families. The released artifact includes article metadata, prompt templates, instantiated prompts, model-output metadata, score tables, documentation, and reproduction scripts. We interpret all scores as observed-window audit signals for human review, not as permanent fairness rankings or direct proof of harmful bias.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the online platforms where humans exchange opinions; large language models (LLMs) now polish users' posts on LinkedIn and provide context for content shared on X. While prior work has shown that AI can express biased opinions and shape individuals' opinions during human-AI interactions, less attention has been paid to its influence on collective opinion formation when mediating human-to-human communication. We address this gap via a combination of empirical and theoretical analyses. We show empirically that LLMs from multiple popular families introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics, for example, nudging texts in favor of gun control and against atheism. Building on this observation, we introduce a mathematical model of opinion dynamics in which an AI system sits between users on a social network, transforming the opinions they express and perceive. By analytically characterizing the equilibrium of this model and performing simulations on real social network data, we show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction. In light of these findings, we investigate whether such biases are controllable by online platforms. We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content, which we trace back to specific design choices. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of our findings in relation to ongoing legislative efforts in the European Union.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human opinions and survey responses, but their ability to reproduce population responses across cultures remains limited. Existing persona-based prompting methods typically rely on sociodemographic or personality traits, which are only indirect proxies for the values that shape human responses. We propose a value-based persona construction method that derives textual descriptors from survey responses capturing core cultural dimensions. By sampling value profiles from target populations and aggregating LLM responses across personas, we obtain population-level predictions grounded in observed value distributions. We further introduce a calibration procedure that improves response diversity while preserving estimated opinions. We show that our approach reduces prediction error across countries, with the largest improvements observed in underrepresented populations. This substantially narrows the performance gap between countries aligned with dominant LLM priors and those that are less represented in training data, while also yielding response distributions that closely match human diversity.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented success due to their exceptional generative capabilities. However, because they depend on knowledge encapsulated from training corpora, they may produce hallucinations, stereotypes, and socially biased content. In particular, LLMs are prone to prejudiced responses involving race, gender, and age, which are collectively referred to as social biases. Prior studies have used fine-tuning and prompt engineering to mitigate such biases in LLMs, but these methods require additional training resources or domain knowledge to design the framework. Moreover, they may degrade the original capabilities of LLMs and often overlook the need for dynamic debiasing contexts for fairer inference. In this paper, we propose DebiasRAG, a novel tuning-free and dynamic query-specific debiasing framework based on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). DebiasRAG improves fairness while preserving the intrinsic properties of LLMs, such as representation ability. DebiasRAG consists of three stages: (1) query-specific debiasing candidate generation; (2) context candidate pool construction; and (3) gradient-updated debiasing-guided context piece reranking. First, DebiasRAG leverages self-diagnosed bias contexts relevant to the query through regular retrieval, where the bias contexts are prepared offline by the DebiasRAG provider. Given the query-specific bias contexts, DebiasRAG reversely produces debiasing contexts, which are provided as additional fairness constraints for LLM outputs. Second, a regular RAG retrieval process produces query-related contexts from the regular RAG document database, such as a chunked Wikipedia dataset.

Through an analysis of sequences generated by open-weight large language models (LLMs), we demonstrate that LLMs are heavily biased toward English. While continual pre-training is commonly used to adapt LLMs to a target language, we show that it does not offer a cost advantage over training from scratch, even for improving cultural understanding in the target language. These findings suggest that dedicated per-language investment may become increasingly important for future LLM development, rather than relying primarily on the expansion of English-centric resources.

Personalisation is a standard feature of conversational AI systems used by millions; yet, the efficacy of personalisation methods is often evaluated in academic research using simulated users rather than real people. This raises questions about how users and their simulated counterparts differ in interaction patterns and judgements, as well as whether personalisation is best achieved through context-based prompting or weight-based fine-tuning. Here, in a large-scale within-subject experiment, we re-recruit 530 participants from 52 countries two years after they gave their preferences in the PRISM dataset (Kirk et al., 2024) to evaluate personalised and non-personalised language models in blinded multi-turn conversations. We find preference fine-tuning (P-DPO, Li et al., 2024) significantly outperforms both a generic model and personalised prompting but adapting to individual preference data yields marginal gains over training on pooled preferences from a diverse population. Beyond length biases, fine-tuning amplifies sycophancy and relationship-seeking behaviours that people reward in short-term evaluations but which may introduce deleterious long-term consequences. Replicating this within-subject experiment with simulated users recovers aggregate model hierarchies but simulators perform far below human self-consistency baselines for individual judgements, discuss different topics, exhibit amplified position biases, and produce feedback dynamics that diverge from humans.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as substitutes for human subjects in behavioral simulations, including synthetic social network generation. Yet it remains unclear how their relational outputs depend on prompt design, cultural framing, prompt language, and model scale. Building on homophily theory and structural balance theory, we formalize four LLM-based tie-formation mechanisms: sequential, global, local, and iterative, and treat them as distinct conditional distributions over edge sets. Using a fixed roster of 50 demographically grounded personas, we generate 192 verified directed networks across four cultural contexts, four prompt languages, three GPT-4.1 variants, and four prompting architectures, with two seeds per condition. We find that cultural framing shifts inbreeding homophily and largest-component connectivity. Political affiliation dominates tie formation under three methods, while the global method substitutes age, showing that prompt architecture functions as a substantive sociological variable. Model scale produces a stable divergence ranking, with the smallest variant behaving qualitatively differently rather than merely noisily. Prompt language alone sharply shifts religion homophily, especially under Hindi prompting, while leaving political homophily nearly invariant. LLM-generated networks match real social graphs on clustering and modularity better than standard graph baselines, yet encode demographic biases above empirical levels. These results show that prompt choices often treated as implementation details encode substantive sociological assumptions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent political text at scale, raising concerns about synthetic discourse during crises and social conflict. Existing AI-text detection often focuses on sentence-level cues such as perplexity, burstiness, or token irregularities, but these signals may weaken as generative systems improve. We instead adopt a Computational Social Science perspective and ask whether synthetic political discourse behaves like an observed online population. We construct a paired corpus of 1,789,406 posts across nine crisis events: COVID-19, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, Dobbs/Roe v. Wade, the 2020 BLM protests, U.S. midterms, the Utah shooting, and the U.S.-Iran war. For each event, we compare observed discourse from social platforms with synthetic discourse generated for the same context. We evaluate four dimensions: emotional intensity, structural regularity, lexical-ideological framing, and cross-event dependency, using mean gaps and dispersion evidence. Across events, synthetic discourse is fluent but population-level unrealistic. It is generally more negative and less dispersed in sentiment, structurally more regular, and lexically more abstract than observed discourse. Observed discourse instead shows broader emotional variation, longer-tailed structural distributions, and more context-specific, colloquial lexical markers. These differences are event-dependent: larger for fast-moving, decentralized crises and smaller for formal or institutionally mediated events. We summarize them with a simple event-level measure, the Caricature Gap. Our findings suggest that the main limitation of synthetic political discourse is not grammar or fluency, but reduced population realism. Population-level auditing complements traditional text-detection and provides a CSS framework for evaluating the social realism of generated discourse.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic preferences for well-known entities, a phenomenon often attributed to popularity bias. However, the extent to which these preferences reflect real-world popularity versus statistical exposure during pretraining remains unclear, largely due to the inaccessibility of most training corpora. We provide the first direct, large-scale analysis of popularity bias grounded in fully observable pretraining data. Leveraging the open OLMo models and their complete pretraining corpus, Dolma, we compute precise entity-level exposure statistics across 7.4 trillion tokens. We analyze 2,000 entities spanning five types (Person, Location, Organization, Art, Product) and compare pretraining exposure against Wikipedia pageviews and two elicited LLM popularity signals: direct scalar estimation and pairwise comparison. Our results show that pretraining exposure strongly correlates with Wikipedia popularity, validating exposure as a meaningful proxy for real-world salience during the training period. More importantly, we find that LLM popularity judgments align more closely with exposure than with Wikipedia, especially when elicited via pairwise comparisons. This alignment is strongest for larger models and persists in the long tail, where Wikipedia popularity becomes unreliable. Overall, our findings demonstrate that popularity priors in LLMs are primarily shaped by pretraining statistics rather than external popularity signals, offering concrete evidence that data exposure plays a central role in driving popularity bias.

Instruction-tuned language models exhibit behavioural fairness in high-stakes decisions while retaining biased associations in their internal representations. However, whether these suppressed representations can affect model outputs - and whether such causal potency is symmetric across demographic groups - remains unknown. We investigate the use of open-weight models for mortgage underwriting using matched applications that differ only in racially-associated names and reveal a critical disconnect: models show no output-level bias, yet retain and amplify demographic representations across model layers. Through activation steering and novel cross-layer interventions, we demonstrate that this suppressed information is decision-relevant: when reinjected at critical layers, it produces near-complete decision reversals. Critically, this latent bias is asymmetric - steering interventions affect decisions in one demographic direction, while producing minimal effects in reverse - and susceptible to adversarial prompt engineering and parameter-efficient fine-tuning. These findings demonstrate that behavioural audits focused on outputs are insufficient: fair outputs can mask exploitable internal biases. They also motivate dual-layer testing frameworks combining output evaluation with representational analysis for AI governance in high-stakes decisions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from order bias, where their performance is affected by the arrangement order of input elements. This unfairness limits the model's applications in scenarios such as in-context learning and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Recent studies attempt to obtain optimal or suboptimal arrangements based on statistical results or using dataset-based search, but these methods increase inference overhead while leaving the model's inherent order bias unresolved. Other studies mitigate order sensitivity through supervised fine-tuning using augmented training sets with multiple order variants, but often at the cost of accuracy, trapping the model in consistent yet incorrect hallucinations. In this paper, we propose \textbf{D}ual \textbf{G}roup \textbf{A}dvantage \textbf{O}ptimization (\textbf{DGAO}), which aims to improve model accuracy and order stability simultaneously. DGAO calculates and balances intra-group relative accuracy advantage and inter-group relative stability advantage, rewarding the policy model for generating order-stable and correct outputs while penalizing order-sensitive or incorrect responses. This marks the first time reinforcement learning has been used to mitigate LLMs' order sensitivity. We also propose two new metrics, Consistency Rate and Overconfidence Rate, to reveal the pseudo-stability of previous methods and guide more comprehensive evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DGAO achieves superior order fairness while improving performance on RAG, mathematical reasoning, and classification tasks. Our code is available at: https://github.com/Hyalinesky/DGAO.

LLM annotators are increasingly used in computational social science (CSS), but it is unclear whether their alignment-shaped errors preserve the empirical conclusions a researcher would report. We audit three open-source 7B instruction-tuned models (Zephyr, Mistral-Instruct, Qwen2.5-Instruct) across six TweetEval tasks under four prompt conditions (72 cells) and find that social-desirability failures do not run in a single direction. Zephyr exhibits leniency bias, systematically under-applying harmful labels (offensive language: false benign rate 0.729, false alarm rate 0.031). Mistral and Qwen exhibit overcorrection, over-applying the same labels (Mistral hate-speech FAR = 0.604). All three models exhibit neutrality bias on abortion stance, underestimating opposition prevalence by 24 to 40 percentage points and inflating the neutral label. None of the four prompting interventions we test (neutral, safety framing, depersonalized, chain-of-thought) corrects these failures across models; safety framing can worsen stance distortion. Strikingly, Zephyr's hate-speech prevalence estimate matches the gold rate exactly while its class-conditional errors are large in both directions, an accidental cancellation that misleads aggregate validation. We translate these patterns into a three-part taxonomy with diagnostic FBR/FAR signatures and a lightweight gold-sample validation protocol. The headline for trustworthy CSS: a model that looks calibrated on aggregate metrics can still flip the substantive empirical conclusion a researcher would report.

Large language models (LLMs) trained on web-scale corpora can memorize sensitive training data, posing significant privacy risks. Differential privacy (DP) has emerged as a principled framework that limits the influence of individual data points during training, yet the relationship between differential privacy and social bias in LLMs remains poorly understood. To investigate this, we present a systematic evaluation of social bias in a pretrained LLM trained with DP-SGD, comparing a DP model against non-DP baselines across four complementary paradigms: sentence scoring, text completion, tabular classification, and question answering. We find that DP reduces bias in sentence scoring tasks, where bias is measured through controlled likelihood comparisons, yet this improvement does not generalize across all tasks. Our results reveal a discrepancy between logit-level bias and output-level bias. Moreover, decreasing memorization does not necessarily reduce unfairness, underscoring the importance of multi-paradigm evaluation when assessing fairness in LLMs.

Large language models increasingly mediate decisions that turn on moral judgement, yet a growing body of evidence shows that their implicit preferences are not culturally neutral. Existing cultural alignment methods either require per-country preference data and fine-tuning budgets or assume white-box access to model internals that commercial APIs do not expose. In this work, we focus on this realistic black-box, public-data-only regime and observe that within-country sociodemographic disagreement, not consensus, is the primary steering signal. We introduce DISCA (Disagreement-Informed Steering for Cultural Alignment), an inference-time method that instantiates each country as a panel of World-Values-Survey-grounded persona agents and converts their disagreement into a bounded, loss-averse logit correction. Across 20 countries and 7 open-weight backbones (2B--70B), DISCA reduces cultural misalignment on MultiTP by 10--24% on the six backbones >=3.8B, and 2--7% on open-ended scenarios, without changing any weights. Our results suggest that inference-time calibration is a scalable alternative to fine-tuning for serving the long tail of global moral preferences.

We use sparse autoencoder (SAE) feature steering to amplify Dark Triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) in Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and evaluate the resulting behavioral changes across five psychological instruments. The steered model becomes substantially more exploitative, aggressive, and callous on novel behavioral scenarios (d=10.62) while its cognitive empathy remains intact, reproducing the empathy dissociation characteristic of human Dark Triad populations. Critically, strategic deception is completely unaffected across all features, suggesting that exploitation and deception may operate through dissociable computational pathways in large language models. Individual feature analysis reveals non-redundant encoding, with each feature driving distinct antisocial mechanisms through separable computational pathways. We also show that feature discovery method itself modulates intervention depth: contrastively-discovered features change both self-report and behavior, while semantically-searched features change only self-report (d=12.65 between methods on behavior). These findings suggest that antisocial tendencies in at least one large language model comprise dissociable components rather than a unified construct, with implications for how such tendencies should be detected, measured, and controlled.

It is becoming increasingly necessary to have monitors check for harmful behaviors during language model interactions, but text-only monitoring has not been sufficient. This is because models sometimes exhibit strategic deception and sandbagging, changing their behavior during evaluation. This motivates the use of white-box monitors like linear probes, which can read the model internals directly. Currently, such probes can fail under distribution shift, limiting their usefulness in real settings. We study whether there exists a low-dimensional subspace of the model internals that captures harmful behaviors more robustly, while leaving out spuriously correlative features. Inspired by the Assistant Axis and Persona Selection Model, we construct persona axes for deception and sycophancy using contrastive persona prompts. The first principal components, obtained by unsupervised PCA of the persona-specific vectors, cleanly separate harmful and harmless personas. Across 10 evaluation datasets, we show that persona-derived directions transfer non-trivially and probes trained on persona-PC projections generalize better than probes trained on raw activations. We also find that a unified axis consisting of multiple harmful and harmless behaviors improves generalization across behaviors and datasets. Overall, persona vectors provide a useful inductive bias for building more transferable behavior probes.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in financial contexts, raising critical concerns about reliability, alignment, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation. While prior finance-related benchmarks assess LLMs' capabilities in stock trading, they are often restricted to small sample and fail to demonstrate LLM susceptibility to context with potential human bias. We introduce Fin-Bias (financial herding under long and uncertain financial context), a benchmark for evaluating LLM investment decision-making when faced with uncertainty and possible human-biased opinions. Fin-Bias includes 8868 long firm-specific analyst reports, including firm aspects summarized and analyzed by sophisticated analysts with investment ratings (Bullish/Neutral/Bearish) spanning from various industries. We present large language models with firm analyst reports with/without analyst investment ratings and even with 'fake' rating, to get investment ratings generated by LLMs. Our results reveal that LLMs tend to herd the explicit bias in context. We also develop a method to detect potential human opinions, which can encourage LLMs to think independently, some models even exceed human performance in predicting future stock return.

Bias audits of large language models now operate within governance frameworks such as the EU AI Act, making benchmark reliability a security concern in its own right. Many current benchmarks, however, collapse bias into a single scalar from one prompt format and one surface label. This design misses two failure modes that can be exploited without changing model weights. Across prompts, meaning-preserving format changes shift bias endorsement by more than $0.7$ on a fixed statement pool. Within a response, the discrete Selection and free-text Elaboration can take opposing stances, so an apparently clean aggregate may hide substantial internal inconsistency (a ``cancellation trap''). Selection-only and elaboration-only rankings are therefore nearly uncorrelated across eight LLMs (Spearman $ρ= 0.238$, $p = 0.570$): LLaMA3-70B ranks in the middle under selection-only scoring but highest under elaboration-only scoring on the same responses. We introduce \textsc{BiAxisAudit}, a protocol that reports each bias score together with a reliability estimate on two orthogonal axes. The across-prompt axis evaluates each statement under a factorial grid of task format, perspective, role, and sentiment, treating bias as a distribution rather than a point estimate. The within-response axis uses Split Coding to recover Selection and Elaboration as separate signals, measured by the Inconsistency Rate and Divergence Net Imbalance. Across eight LLMs with $80{,}200$ coded responses each, task format alone explains as much variance as model choice; $63.6\%$ of pooled bias signals (up to $85.2\%$ per model) appear in only one coding layer, and prompt-dimension interactions exceed main effects. The instrument also separates real bias reductions from apparent reductions caused by cross-layer redistribution: some prompt configurations reduce both BER and IR, whereas others suppress only selection-layer bias.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed not only to make decisions but to explain them. While AI decision fairness has been studied extensively, the fairness of AI explanations (whether LLMs justify decisions with equal quality, depth, tone, and linguistic sophistication across demographic groups) has received little attention. This paper introduces the Explanation Fairness Taxonomy (EFT), a framework comprising five formally defined, operationalizable dimensions: Verbosity Disparity, Sentiment Disparity, Epistemic Hedging Disparity, Decision-Linked Explanation Disparity, and Lexical Complexity Disparity. The taxonomy is instantiated in a controlled empirical study across 80 prompt templates, four consequential decision domains (hiring, medical triage, credit assessment, legal judgment), and five LLMs: GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet, LLaMA 3.3 70B, GPT-OSS 120B, and Qwen3 32B. Two novel black-box metrics are introduced: the Hedging Density Score (HDS) and the Explanation Faithfulness Proxy (EFP), a heuristic indicator of decision-linked explanation variation. Across up to 400 prompt pairs, all eight EFT metrics show statistically significant disparities (Cohen's d ranging from small to large, all p_BH < 10^(-62)). Model choice is strongly associated with disparity magnitude: Qwen3 32B exhibits verbosity disparities 5.9x larger than LLaMA 3.3 70B. Two prompting-based mitigations show significant reductions in EFP disparity (78-95%) but no significant effect on stylistic dimensions, consistent with the hypothesis that stylistic explanation inequalities are encoded in pre-training distributions and are not resolvable through deployment-level instruction alone. A reproducible measurement framework is offered for explanation-level fairness auditing, with implications for AI regulation and deployment practice.

Since the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), a significant area of research has focused on their intrinsic biases, particularly in political discourse. This study investigates a different but related concept, "political plasticity", which is defined as the capacity of models to adapt their responses based on the user supplied context. To analyze this, a testing framework was developed using an expanded corpus of 200 politically-oriented questions across economic and personal freedom axes, based on a prior framework by Lester (1996). The study explored several methods to induce political bias, including simplified and topic-based system prompts, as well as user prompts with few-shot examples. The results show that while system prompts were largely ineffective, user prompts successfully elicited significant ideological shifts, particularly along the Economic Freedom axis in larger and newer models. Through a validation experiment, we examined whether models answer questionnaires by recognizing the underlying question format. Inverting the sense of the questions revealed unexpected, counter-intuitive shifts in most models, suggesting potential data leakage. Finally, we also analyzed how model plasticity varies when the experiment is conducted in different languages. The results reveal subtle yet notable shifts across each of the analyzed languages. Overall, our results indicate that small and older LLMs exhibit limited or unstable political plasticity, whereas newer frontier models display reliable, expected adaptability.

Human label variation has been established as a central phenomenon in NLP: the perspectives different annotators have on the same item need to be embraced. Data collection practices thus shifted towards increasing the annotator numbers and releasing disaggregated datasets, harmful language being most resourced due to its high subjectivity. While this resulted in rich information about \textit{who} annotated (sociodemographics, attitudes, etc.), the \textit{what} (e.g., linguistic properties of items), and their interplay has received little attention. We present the first large-scale analysis of four reference datasets for harmful language detection, bringing together annotator characteristics, linguistic properties of the items, and their interactions in a statistically informed picture. We find that interactions are crucial, revealing intersectional effects ignored in previous work, and that a strong role is played by lexical cues and annotator attitudes. Effect patterns, however, vary considerably across datasets. This urges caution about generalization and transferability.

Reward models are a key component of large language model alignment, serving as proxies for human preferences during training. However, existing evaluations focus primarily on broad instruction-following benchmarks, providing limited insight into whether these models capture socially desirable preferences. As a result, important failures in social alignment can remain hidden. We extend reward-model benchmarking to four socially consequential domains: bias, safety, morality, and ethical reasoning. We introduce a framework that converts social evaluation datasets into pairwise preference data, leveraging gold labels where available and directional bias indicators otherwise. This enables us to test whether reward models prefer socially undesirable responses, and whether their preferences produce systematically biased distributions over selected outputs. Across five publicly available reward models and two instruction-tuned models used as reward proxies, we find substantial variation across domains, with no single model performing best overall. The models fall well short of strong social intelligence: they often prefer socially undesirable options, and their preferences produce systematically biased distributions. Moreover, stronger bias avoidance can reduce sensitivity to context, revealing a key alignment trade-off between avoiding biased outcomes and preserving contextual faithfulness. These findings show that standard reward benchmarks are insufficient for assessing social alignment and highlight the need for evaluations that directly measure the social preferences encoded in reward models.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely recognised for their applications in natural language generation and are increasingly used for code generation tasks. However, concerns about bias in their generated outputs remain significant. This paper focuses on GPT-4o and Gemini, mainstream tools for code generation, and proposes a framework for evaluating bias in LLM-generated code, specifically examining the influence of protected attributes, prompts and web-search capability. We use two metrics: the code bias score (CBS) and the attribute change ratio (ACR), to quantify the prevalence of bias and the degree of influence of different attributes, respectively. In addition, we investigate four lightweight mitigation strategies: Few-Shot, Chain-of-Thought, Few-Shot Chain-of-Thought, and Multi-agent, aimed at mitigating bias in generated code. Our findings reveal that bias remains prevalent across different protected attributes and datasets even after applying mitigation strategies, highlighting the need for more effective approaches to reduce bias in AI-driven code generation systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings that require nuanced ethical reasoning, yet existing bias evaluations treat model outputs as simply "biased" or "unbiased." This binary framing misses the gradual, context-sensitive way bias actually emerges. We address this gap in two stages: behavioral profiling and mechanistic validation. In the behavioral stage, we introduce the Moral Sensitivity Index (MSI), a metric that quantifies the probability of biased output across a graduated, seven-tier stress test ranging from abstract numerical problems to scenarios rooted in historical and socioeconomic injustice. Evaluating four leading models (Claude 3.5, Qwen 3.5, Llama 3, and Gemini 1.5), we identify distinct behavioral signatures shaped by alignment design: for instance, Gemini 1.5 reaches 72.7% MSI by Tier 5 under socioeconomic framing, while Claude exhibits sharp suppression consistent with identity-based safety training. We then verify these behavioral patterns mechanistically. We select criminal-bias scenarios, which produced the highest MSI scores across models, as probes and apply logit lens, attention analysis, activation patching, and semantic probing to a controlled set of six models spanning three capability tiers: small language models (SLMs), instruction-tuned base models, and reasoning-distilled variants. Circuit-level analysis reveals a U-curve of bias: SLMs exhibit strong criminal bias; scaling to instruction-tuned models eliminates it; reasoning distillation reintroduces bias to SLM-like levels despite identical parameter counts, suggesting distillation compresses reasoning traces in ways that reactivate shallow statistical associations. Critically, the socially loaded cues that drive high MSI scores activate the same bias-driving circuits identified mechanistically, providing cross-stage validation.

Large language models pick up social biases from the data they are trained on and carry those biases into downstream applications, often reinforcing stereotypes around gender, race, religion, disability, age, and socioeconomic status. The standard fixes (retraining on curated data or fine-tuning with human feedback) are expensive, need access to model weights, and risk degrading the model on other tasks. In this paper we take a different route: we debias the model at decoding time, treating bias mitigation as a structured search over candidate tokens without ever touching model weights. A separate Process Reward Model (PRM) acts as a judge, scoring each candidate for both fairness and fluency. We design three schemes of increasing sophistication (Best-of-N selection, Sequential critique-and-revise, and Constitutional self-audit) and evaluate them on four models (GPT-4o-mini, Llama 3.2 3B, Gemma 3 4B, Qwen 2.5 3B) across a 200-prompt bilingual benchmark in English and Urdu covering eight bias categories. Sequential debiasing proves the most effective, raising mean bias scores by up to +0.40 over baseline while preserving (and sometimes improving) fluency. We then extend all three schemes to open-ended generation, where each token is debiased on the fly, and introduce a lightweight Bias Guard gate that fires only on potentially biased words, keeping overhead near 2x for well-calibrated models. A formal overhead metric that separates generator cost from judge cost reveals that Best-of-N is effectively free on the generator side in a native implementation. GPT-4o-mini, included as a strong proprietary anchor, confirms that the framework scales with model capability; the three open-weight models show where current small-scale LLMs still struggle.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into high-stakes public safety systems, including emergency call triage and dispatch decision support, yet their demographic fairness in this context remains largely untested. Here we introduce a cross-lingual audit framework that operationalizes the Police Priority Dispatch System as a five-level ordinal classification task and applies a controlled minimal-pair design to isolate the effect of demographic cues. Across 19,800 model outputs spanning 11 frontier models, 15 scenario pairs, three demographic categories (religious appearance, gender, and race), and two languages (English and Mandarin Chinese), we find that demographic bias emerges systematically when incident severity is ambiguous but largely disappears when the operational priority is clearly determined by call content. Bias magnitude varies by demographic axis, with the largest effects observed for religious appearance, followed by gender and race. Critically, bias does not transfer consistently across languages: gender bias is substantially amplified in Mandarin Chinese, whereas race bias is more pronounced in English, revealing cross-lingual asymmetries that aggregate analyses obscure. In several scenarios, demographic cues produce counter-directional effects, challenging simple stereotype-amplification accounts of model behavior. These findings suggest that bias in LLM-based dispatch is not a fixed property of models alone, but arises from the interaction between demographic signals, contextual ambiguity, and language. Beyond these empirical results, the proposed framework provides a scalable audit infrastructure that enables deploying agencies to evaluate candidate models on jurisdiction-relevant scenarios prior to real-world adoption.

Weight pruning is widely advocated for deploying Large Language Models on resource-constrained IoT and edge devices, yet its impact on model fairness remains poorly understood. We conduct a controlled empirical study of three instruction-tuned models (Gemma-2-9b-it, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, Phi-3.5-mini-instruct) across three pruning methods (Random, Magnitude, Wanda) at four sparsity levels (10-70%) on 12,148 BBQ bias benchmark items with 5 random seeds, totaling 2,368,860 inference records. Our results reveal a Smart Pruning Paradox: activation-aware pruning (Wanda) preserves perplexity nearly perfectly (just 3.5% increase at 50% sparsity for Mistral-7B), yet produces the highest bias amplification, with Stereotype Reliance Score increasing 83.7% and 47-59% of previously unbiased items developing new stereotypical behaviors at 70% sparsity. Random pruning destroys language capability entirely (perplexity exceeding $10^4$ and reaching $10^8$) but produces only random-chance bias. We further show that unstructured pruning provides zero storage savings and zero inference latency reduction on real edge hardware, undermining the primary motivation for its use in IoT deployment. Of 180 dense-vs-pruned comparisons, 141 (78.3%) are significant ($p < 0.05$) with mean $|h| = 0.305$. Published quantization studies report up to 21% of responses flipping between biased and unbiased states; our pruning results show transition rates nearly three times higher (47-59%), suggesting pruning poses a categorically greater risk to alignment than quantization. These findings demonstrate that perplexity-based evaluation provides false assurance of behavioral equivalence, and that IoT deployment pipelines require bias-aware validation before deploying pruned models at the edge.

Counterfactual prompting (i.e., perturbing a single factor and measuring output change) is widely used to evaluate things like LLM bias and CoT faithfulness. But in this work we argue that observed effects cannot be attributed to the targeted factor without accounting for baseline ``meaning-preserving'' modifications to text that establish general model sensitivity. This is because every counterfactual edit is a compound treatment that bundles the variable of interest with incidental surface-form variation; this violates treatment variation irrelevance. We observe prediction flip rates on MedQA of 14.9% when we surgically change patient gender. However, this is statistically indistinguishable from the flip rates induced by simply paraphrasing inputs (14.1%). In this case, it would therefore be unwarranted to conclude that the LLM is especially sensitive to patient gender. To account for this and robustly measure the effects of targeted interventions, we propose a framework in which we compare (via statistical testing) differences observed under target interventions to those induced by paraphrasing inputs. We then use this framework to revisit a analysis done on the MedPerturb dataset, which reported evidence of model sensitivity to patient demographics and stylistic cues. We find that these effects largely dissipate when we account for general model sensitivity, with only 5 of 120 tests reaching statistical significance. Applying the same framework to occupational biography classification, we detect clearly significant directional gender bias, showing that the framework identifies real directional effects even when they are small. We evaluate a range of metrics -- aggregate, per-sample distributional, and regression -- and find that per-sample metrics are dramatically more powerful than aggregate metrics and regression powerfully and uniquely characterizes effect direction and magnitude.

Partisan news media erode cross-partisan trust, but large language models (LLMs) offer a potential means of debiasing such content at scale. Across two pre-registered experiments, we tested whether LLM-generated debiasing of liberal news headlines could improve conservative readers' trust-relevant judgments. Study 1 found that subtle lexical debiasing (replacing emotive words with more moderate synonyms) had no effect on any outcome. Study 2 found that a more substantive reframing intervention significantly increased conservatives' perceived trustworthiness, completeness, and willingness to engage with liberal news headlines, without producing a backfire effect among a sample of liberals. In Study 1, the intervention produced robust effects among LLM-simulated silicon participants, whereas it had no impact on human readers. In Study 2, the intervention's effects among silicon participants aligned directionally with human responses but were significantly larger in magnitude for some outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that the model's implicit theory of who responds to debiasing diverged from the psychological profile that actually predicted human responsiveness. These findings demonstrate that LLM-based debiasing can improve cross-partisan receptivity when targeting ideological framing rather than surface-level language, but that current models lack both the quantitative accuracy and qualitative psychological fidelity to evaluate their own interventions without human oversight.

Understanding how people argue across ideological divides online is important for studying political polarization, misinformation, and content moderation. Existing datasets capture only part of this problem: some preserve text but ignore interaction structure, some model structure without rich semantics, and others represent conversations without stable user-level ideological identity. We introduce ControBench, a benchmark for controversial discourse analysis that combines heterogeneous social interaction graphs with rich textual semantics. Built from Reddit discussions on three topics, Trump, abortion, and religion, ControBench contains 7,370 users, 1,783 posts, and 26,525 interactions. The graph contains user and post nodes connected by semantically enriched edges; in particular, user-comment-user edges encode both a reply and the parent comment that it responds to, preserving local argumentative context. User labels are derived from self-declared Reddit flairs, providing a scalable proxy for ideological identity without manual annotation. The resulting datasets exhibit low or negative adjusted homophily (Trump: -0.77, Abortion: 0.06, Religion: 0.04), reflecting the cross-cutting structure of real-world debate. We evaluate graph neural networks, pretrained language models, and large language models on ControBench and observe distinct performance patterns across topics and model families, especially when ideological boundaries are ambiguous. These results position ControBench as a challenging and realistic benchmark for controversial discourse analysis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to generate code for human-centered applications where demographic fairness is critical. However, existing evaluations focus almost exclusively on functional correctness, leaving social bias in LLM-generated code largely unexamined. Extending our prior work on Solar, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study using SocialBias-Bench, a benchmark of 343 real-world coding tasks spanning seven demographic dimensions. We evaluate four prominent LLMs and find severe bias across all models, with Code Bias Scores reaching up to 60.58%. We further show that standard prompt-level interventions, such as Chain-of-Thought reasoning and fairness persona assignment, inadvertently amplify bias rather than reduce it. We then investigate whether structured multi-agent software process frameworks can improve fairness, finding that structured pipelines reduce bias when early roles correctly scope what the code should and should not consider. However, adding explicit fairness instructions to all agent roles produces worse outcomes than providing none, suggesting that diffused responsibility goes unaddressed. To address these limitations, we propose the Fairness Monitor Agent (FMA), a modular component that plugs into any existing code generation pipeline without modifying it. FMA analyzes the task description to determine which attributes should be considered or restricted, then detects and corrects violations through an iterative review process, without requiring an executable test suite. Evaluated on all 343 tasks, FMA reduces bias by 65.1% compared to a developer agent alone and improves functional correctness from 75.80% to 83.97%, outperforming all other studied approaches.

Detecting language ideologies is a valuable yet complex task for understanding how identities are constructed through discourse. In Luxembourg's multicultural and multilingual society, language ideologies reflect more than simple preferences: they carry deep cultural and social meanings, shaping identities and social belonging. Following recent developments in applying Natural Language Processing tools to linguistics and social science, this paper explores the potential of large language models to assist in the detection of language ideologies. We manually annotate a corpus of user comments in Luxembourgish with predefined ideological categories and then evaluate the performance of large language models under varying prompt conditions to assess their ability to replicate these human annotations. Since Luxembourgish is a small language and poorly represented in the LLMs' training data, we also investigate whether machine-translating the data to high-resource languages increases performance on the ideology detection task. Our findings suggest that, while LLMs are not yet fully optimized for a multi-class ideological annotation task, they are practical tools to identify language ideological content.

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires, which typically place frontier models on the political left. A parallel literature shows that LLMs are sycophantic: they adapt their answers to the views, identities, and expectations of the user. We show that these findings are linked: standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor. We employ a factorial experiment across three major audit instruments--the Political Compass Test, the Pew Political Typology, and 1,540 partisan-benchmarked Pew American Trends Panel items--administered to six frontier LLMs while varying only the asker's stated identity (N = 30,990 responses). At baseline, all six models lean left. When the asker identifies as a conservative Republican, responses shift sharply: the share of items closer to Democrats falls by 28-62 percentage points, and all six models move right of center. A mirror-image progressive-Democrat cue produces little change; rightward accommodation is 8.0$\times$ larger than leftward. When asked who the default asker is, models identify an auditor, researcher, or academic; when asked what answer that asker expects, they select the Democrat-coded option 75% of the time, nearly the rate under an explicit progressive cue. These patterns are inconsistent with a purely fixed model ideology and indicate that single-prompt audits capture an interaction between model and inferred interlocutor. Political bias in LLMs is therefore not a fixed point on an ideological scale but a response profile that must be mapped across realistic interlocutors.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can strongly shape social discourse, yet datasets investigating how LLM outputs vary across controlled social and contextual prompting remain sparse. Cognitive Digital Shadows (CDS) is a 190,000-record synthetic corpus supporting analyses of LLM-generated discourse. Each CDS record is generated by one of 19 LLMs, prompted to shadow either a human persona or an AI-assistant role. CDS contains LLM responses on 4 controversial societal topics: vaccines/healthcare, social media disinformation, the gender gap in science, and STEM stereotypes. Persona-conditioned records encode 17 sociodemographic and psychological attributes, providing data linking LLMs' prompts, language, stances and reasoning. Texts are validated for topic anchoring and can support emotional analyses via interpretable NLP (e.g. textual forma mentis networks). CDS is enriched by a pooling platform with user-friendly dashboards, enabling easy, interactive group-level comparisons of emotional and semantic framing across personas, topics and models. The CDS prompting framework supports future audits of LLMs' bias, social sensitivity and alignment.

Reward models (RMs) play a central role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, RMs are often sensitive to spurious features such as response length. Existing inference-time approaches for mitigating these biases typically focus exclusively on response length, resulting in performance trade-offs. In this paper, we propose causally motivated intervention for mitigating multiple types of biases in RMs at inference time. Our method first identifies neurons whose activations are strongly correlated with predefined bias attributes, and applies neuron-level intervention that suppresses these signals. We evaluate our method on RM benchmarks and observe reductions in sensitivity to spurious features across diverse bias types, without inducing performance trade-offs. Moreover, when used for preference annotation, small RMs (2B and 7B) with our method, which edits less than 2% of all the neurons in RMs, enable LLMs to improve alignment, achieving performance comparable to that of a state-of-the-art 70B RM on AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. Further analysis reveals that bias signals are primarily encoded by neurons in early layers, shedding light on the internal mechanisms of bias exploitation in RMs.

AutoML, intended as the process of automating the application of machine learning to real-world problems, is a key step for AI popularisation. Most AutoML frameworks are not accounting for the potential lack of fairness in the training data and in the corresponding predictions. We introduce \textsc{FairMind}, a software prototype aiming to automatise fairness analysis at the dataset level. We achieve that by resorting to the assumptions of the \emph{standard fairness model}, recently proposed by Plečko and Bareinboim. This allows for a sound fairness evaluation in terms of causal effects, based on \emph{counterfactual} queries involving the target, possibly confounders and mediators, and the different values of an input feature we regard as \emph{protected}. After the necessary data preprocessing, the tool implements a closed-form computation of the effects. LLMs are consequently exploited to generate accurate reports on the fairness levels detected in the training dataset. We achieve that in a zero-shot setup and show by examples the expected advantages with respect to a direct analysis performed by the LLM. To favour applications, extensions to ordinal protected variable and continuous targets and novel decomposition results are also discussed.

Among the many challenges hindering the responsible development and deployment of AI, arguably none has faced more intense scrutiny than bias in its various forms. This underscores the widespread concerns across AI researchers that model outputs, e.g., from generative AI, may encode structural distributional imbalances (stemming from training data or model design) that may amplify social inequality or introduce systemic distortions across application domains ranging from biodiversity to disaster mitigation. Yet, relatively little work has investigated the geographical nature of bias or developed measurable benchmarks for what it means for (generative) AI to be unbiased. In this chapter, we investigate this issue through a literature review. As foundation models are reshaping the landscape of bias research, we examine work spanning both the pre-generative AI and generative AI periods. First, we identify a range of geographic biases. These biases span from representation bias in the training data and regional disparities in the factual recall of language models to the tendency of generative AI to over-proportionally favor prototypical places (called defaults). Then, we showcase how recent studies address the latter bias by evaluating geographic diversity in the outputs of generative AI across various cognitive levels, parameter settings, and output modalities.

We investigate linguistic biases in LLM-based restaurant and product recommendations given prompts varying across Southern American English (AE), Indian English (IE), and Code-Switched Hindi-English dialects, using the Yelp Open dataset (Yelp Inc., 2023) and Walmart product reviews dataset (PromptCloud,2020). We add lists of restaurant and product names balanced by cuisine type and product category to the prompts given to the LLM, and we zero-shot prompt the LLMs in a cold-start setting to select the top-20 restaurant and product recommendations from these lists for each of the dialect-varied prompts. We prompt LLMs using different list samples across 20 seeds for better generalization, and aggregate per cuisine-type and per category response counts for each seed, question/prompt, and LLM model. We run mixed-effects regression models for each model family and topic (restaurant/product) with the aggregate response counts as the dependent, and conduct likelihood ratio tests for the fixed effects with post-hoc pairwise testing of estimated marginal means differences, to investigate group-level differences in recommendation counts by model size and dialect type. Results show that dialect plays a role in the type of restaurant selected across the models tested with the mistral-small-3.1 model and both the llama-3.1 family models tested showing more sensitivity to Indian English and Code-Switched prompts. In terms of product recommendations, the llama-3.1-70B-model is particularly sensitive to Code-Switched prompts in four out of seven categories, and more beauty and home category recommendations are seen when using the Indian English and Code-Switched prompts for larger and smaller models, respectively. No broad trends are seen in the model-size based differences, with differing recommendations based on model sizes conditioned by the type of dialect.

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.

The TRUST democratic discourse analysis pipeline exposes its large language model (LLM) components to peer model identity through multiple structural channels -- a design feature whose bias implications have not previously been empirically tested. We provide the first systematic measurement of identity-dependent scoring bias across all active identity exposure channels in TRUST, crossing four model families with two anonymization scopes across 30 political statements. The central finding is that single-channel anonymization produces near-zero bias effects, because individual channels act in opposite directions and cancel each other out -- a result that would lead an evaluator to conclude that identity bias is absent when it is not. Only full-pipeline anonymization reveals the true pattern: homogeneous ensembles amplify identity-driven sycophancy when model identity is fully visible, while the heterogeneous production configuration shows the reverse. Model choice matters independently: one tested model exhibits baseline sycophancy two to three times higher than the others and near-zero deliberative conflict on ideological topics, making it structurally unsuitable for pipelines where genuine inter-role disagreement is the intended quality mechanism. Three practical conclusions follow. First, heterogeneous model ensembles are structurally more robust than homogeneous ones, achieving higher consensus rates and lower identity amplification. Second, full-pipeline anonymization is required for valid bias measurement -- partial anonymization is insufficient and actively misleading. Third, these findings have direct implications for the validation of multi-agent LLM systems in quality-critical applications: a system validated under partial anonymization or with a homogeneous ensemble may pass validation while retaining structural identity bias invisible to single-channel measurement.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for text generation tasks from everyday use to high-stakes enterprise and government applications, including simulated interviews with asylum seekers. While many works highlight the new potential applications of LLMs, there are risks of LLMs encoding and perpetuating harmful biases about non-dominant communities across the globe. To better evaluate and mitigate such harms, more research examining how LLMs portray diverse individuals is needed. In this work, we study how national origin identities are portrayed by widely-adopted LLMs in response to open-ended narrative generation prompts. Our findings demonstrate the presence of persistent representational harms by national origin, including harmful stereotypes, erasure, and one-dimensional portrayals of Global Majority identities. Minoritized national identities are simultaneously underrepresented in power-neutral stories and overrepresented in subordinated character portrayals, which are over fifty times more likely to appear than dominant portrayals. The degree of harm is amplified when US nationality cues (e.g., ``American'') are present in input prompts. Notably, we find that the harms we identify cannot be explained away via sycophancy, as US-centric biases persist even when replacing US nationality cues with non-US national identities in the prompts. Based on our findings, we call for further exploration of cultural harms in LLMs through methodologies that center Global Majority perspectives and challenge the uncritical adoption of US-based LLMs for the classification, surveillance, and misrepresentation of the majority of our planet.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit representational and syntactic biases that are difficult to evaluate due to the stochastic nature of text generation. Standard auditing methods rely on a single output inspection or static automated metrics. These approaches obscure the underlying probability distributions and fail to capture biases hidden in lower-probability generation branches. This paper introduces TreeTracer, a visual analytics tool designed to evaluate LLM bias through aggregated comparison. Using a systematic perturbation analysis pipeline, the tool replaces ontology-defined terms in each input prompt, aggregates hundreds of stochastic generations into a syntax-aligned hierarchical structure, and then performs classification-aware node merging with an auxiliary language model. The resulting structure is visualized through a custom Sankey diagram. By juxtaposing two ontology-driven trees, the workspace enables direct comparison between semantic contexts and supports systematic bias detection. Because any visualization reflects only a subset of the model's learned behavior, the system further applies contrastive inference to compute and directly display counterfactual token probabilities across contexts, reducing the risk of misinterpreting the presence of bias. We validate the workspace through case studies comparing an unaligned baseline model GPT-2 XL against the constitutionally aligned Apertus models. The visual aggregation successfully exposes hidden representational harms, such as counterfactual pronoun suppression and conversational marginalization of individuals. A preliminary user study confirms that the aggregated comparative interface reduces cognitive load and effectively supports analysts in detecting systemic biases.