Social Bias in Language Models

LLMs encode, convey, and perpetuate stereotypes. Prior computational research focuses on a small set of semantic axes investigated in social psychology, and operates on word embeddings produced by language models, leaving open which other semantic axes carry stereotypical associations in LLMs and how LLMs internally represent such axes. We introduce STEREODISCO, a framework that adapts the semantic differential method (Osgood et al., 1957) to the systematic study of stereotypes in LLM internal representations. STEREODISCO constructs approx. 2,000 candidate semantic axes from WordNet antonym synsets, recovers each as a geometric axis in the LLM's activation space via probing, and identifies stereotypical axes via a statistical test over concept projections. As a case study, we apply STEREODISCO to social group stereotypes with LLAMA-3-8B-INSTRUCT and MISTRAL-7B-INSTRUCT. We find that the two LLMs agree with each other on social group ratings more than with humans, suggesting that LLM-encoded stereotype content diverges from that documented in social psychology. We also discover stereotypical axes not investigated in prior work -- including humble vs. proud, narrow-minded vs. broad-minded, and cowardly vs. brave, which human annotators independently confirm.

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

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

Regional bias in large language models (LLMs) may shape both perceptions of regional groups and decisions about individuals from different regions. Yet existing studies often examine these manifestations separately, leaving their structure and consequences unclear. We introduce Stereotypes-to-Decisions (S2D), a systematic framework evaluating regional bias from abstract stereotypes to concrete social decisions. Covering all 34 provincial-level administrative regions of China, S2D evaluates six LLMs using stereotype ratings of Warmth (perceived friendliness and trustworthiness) and Competence (perceived capability and intelligence), along with paired-choice tasks across Education, Occupation, and Social Interaction. Results reveal substantial regional differences in regional scores, with considerable agreement across models, especially for Competence and Occupation decisions. Furthermore, these patterns are associated with regional economic and digital development indicators and display mixed human-like stereotypes, with some regions rated highly on one dimension but poorly on the other. They also remain largely stable across Chinese and English prompts. Overall, our findings show that regional bias in LLMs is prevalent, systematic, and consequential, motivating more regionally aware evaluation and mitigation.

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

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

Recent findings suggest that detection models for artificial intelligence (AI) cannot accurately identify AI-generated text and may exhibit bias against certain minority groups. In the present study, anecdotal claims that autistic writers more often have their work flagged as AI-generated are examined empirically. A corpus of approximately 60,000 Reddit posts split into "likely-autistic" and "general-Reddit" subcorpora is used to compare the distribution of probabilities output by the OpenAI GPT-2 detection model. Differences in textual features between subcorpora are observed and compared to reported features of AI-generated text. Results showed that while less than two-percent of either subcorpus was flagged as AI-generated by the model, significantly more texts from the likely-autistic subcorpus were flagged. Connections between features of text with likely-autistic authors and AI-generated text were not straightforward. The widespread use of AI-detection models with a potential bias against autistic writers in their output prompts ethical scrutiny, and the authors recommend further critical examination of the models themselves as well as their use in academic contexts.

Transformer language models are increasingly used as software components, yet biased outputs remain difficult to localize and repair inside the model. Existing fairness testing and repair methods largely operate at the input-output or retraining level, while recent work suggests that bias-related behavior can concentrate in a small set of attention heads. This paper studies whether attention heads can be localized and repaired through a targeted inference-time intervention. We introduce ROBIN, a white-box head-level fairness debugging method that ranks attention heads using sensitivity to fairness probes and removes a small bias subspace from selected head outputs. In a four-model pilot study, ROBIN reduces the measured WinoBias gap across all models while preserving language-modeling quality better than whole-head zeroing. These preliminary results suggest that head-level bias repair should consider not only which heads are selected, but also how selected heads are modified.

Preprocessing-based methods for stereotype mitigation, such as pre-/post-training on debiased corpora, are widely used in NLP. While these approaches reduce measurable stereotypes for targeted groups, we find they often induce unintended shifts-side effects, where stereotyping or counter-stereotyping can increase relative to neutral baselines for other demographics, including across unrelated demographic categories. We demonstrate these side effects across two model families (encoder-only and decoder-only), multiple preprocessing strategies (removing stereotypical sentences, removing group mentions, and swapping group references), and both pre- and post-training at different data scales on Wikipedia. Standard benchmarks frequently miss these shifts. Using attention-rollout analysis, we observe that such side effects are not accompanied by large changes in attention flow, complicating mechanistic explanations. We discuss implications for evaluation, provide actionable diagnostics, and argue for side-effect-aware, transparent mitigation practices.

Research on stereotypes in large language models (LLMs) has largely focused on English-speaking contexts, due to the lack of datasets in other languages and the high cost of manual annotation in underrepresented cultures. To address this gap, we introduce a cost-efficient human-LLM collaborative annotation framework and apply it to construct EspanStereo, a Spanish-language stereotype dataset spanning multiple Spanish-speaking countries across Europe and Latin America. EspanStereo captures both well-documented stereotypes from prior literature and culturally specific biases absent from English-centric resources. Using LLMs to generate candidate stereotypes and in-culture annotators to validate them, we demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in identifying nuanced, region-specific biases. Our evaluation of Spanish-supporting LLMs using EspanStereo reveals significant variation in stereotypical behavior across countries, highlighting the need for more culturally grounded assessments. Beyond Spanish, our framework is adaptable to other languages and regions, offering a scalable path toward multilingual stereotype benchmarks. This work broadens the scope of stereotype analysis in LLMs and lays the groundwork for comprehensive cross-cultural bias evaluation.

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).

Language models (LMs) exhibit problematic biases, such as stereotypes. Effectively analyzing and mitigating such biases requires accurate and generalizable evaluation methods of the underlying associations. Some existing approaches focus on downstream metrics that analyze associations in generated text. Since generated text content can vary drastically across LMs, such metrics often require specialized evaluation datasets, which limits the generalization of such downstream metrics. In contrast, upstream metrics examine LMs at the fundamental level of embeddings or continuation probabilities, enabling principled association analyses across LMs. Yet, to date, no upstream metric for generative LMs has uncovered a strong relationship with real-world associations, including those measured in generated text. To address this gap, we introduce the Relative Probability Association Metric (RPAM), an association evaluation metric for generative LMs. For three LMs of different quality of language generation and purpose (Mistral-7B-Instruct, Mistral-7B, and GPT-2) and well-studied evaluation datasets (WEAT-WS, Bellezza, WS-353, and SST2), we find a strong relationship between upstream RPAM measurements and corresponding implicit and explicit associations observed in humans, as well as biases measured downstream with LM-specific tasks, outperforming prior record values where applicable.

Warning: This paper contains several toxic and offensive statements. While reasoning generally improves fairness in recent large language models (LLMs), failures persist. In this work, we identify a failure mode, deductive stereotyping, in which models apply population-level statistical regularities to individual cases, producing logically coherent yet socially biased inferences. We provide a statistical interpretation of this phenomenon. To steer models toward fairness-aware reasoning, we propose a reasoning-time injection framework. We further introduce Fair-GCG to systematically discover effective injection phrases. Injection phrases discovered by Fair-GCG improve performance across multiple fairness benchmarks, generalize from smaller to larger LLMs, improves reasoning-level fairness, reduces bias in open-ended generation, and transfer to real-world fairness-sensitive tasks.

We audit fourteen mainstream large language models (LLMs) for hiring discrimination using the paired-resume methodology of Kline, Rose, and Walters (2022). The sole 2023-vintage model reproduces the pro-White callback gap documented in field experiments on labor market discrimination ($+2.12$ pp, significant at the 1% level). Every model released in 2024 or after shows either a null gap or a significant pro-Black reversal (up to $-3.01$ pp). The same pattern holds on the gender axis. Based on 24,024 paired postings per model across 14 models, our results document a reversal in the direction of algorithmic hiring bias across model generations.

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.

Bias in natural language remains a persistent challenge in both human-written and AI-generated content, affecting domains such as journalism, education, and AI research. Most existing detection methods identify only the presence of bias, with limited support for granular detection, interpretable explanations, neutral rewriting, and openly available trained models. We present UnBias-Plus, an open-source toolkit unifying (1) segment-level multi-class bias classification, (2) biased span localization, (3) neutral text rewriting, and (4) reasoning for each decision. Available via Python, CLI, REST API, and web interfaces, UnBias-Plus supports accessible bias analysis. The toolkit, source code, models, datasets, and documentation are publicly available.

Who invented the radio, Russia's Alexander Popov or Italy's Guglielmo Marconi? Was the telephone the achievement of Bell in the United States or Meucci in Italy? Does printing belong to China's Bi Sheng or Germany's Gutenberg? The answer depends not only on historical record but also on language and perspective. We analyse eleven widely used large language models across 21 disputed inventions and discoveries, evaluated in twelve languages and 75,896 responses. While models generally acknowledge that credit is contested, query language systematically affects which claimant is surfaced. Lower-status claimants are more likely to appear when questions are asked in their associated language, whereas dominant Anglophone figures remain stable across languages. These patterns persist after controlling for response length, model differences, historical prominence, and levels of national commemoration. Language thus acts as a switch that activates different national versions of the same history, producing systematically different national memories from the same question. We interpret this as evidence that large language models function as distributed systems of cultural memory, where language conditions which histories become visible, contributing to a computational form of banal nationalism.

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.

The increasing prominence of Large Language Models (LLMs) in public discourse presents both opportunities and challenges for democratic deliberation. While red teaming strategies help mitigate specific risks, broader concerns persist regarding linguistic constraints, biases, and the sycophantic tendencies of LLMs. This chapter explores how LLMs can be used to significantly scale up and democratise deliberation, particularly in fostering inclusivity and empowering traditionally marginalised groups. Drawing on concepts from Systemic-Functional Linguistics, the chapter examines how variations across language users (for example, with respect to socio-demographic groups) and across language use (for example, with respect to communicative functions) shape participation in AI-supported deliberation. The chapter presents AI-driven deliberation studies and assesses their potential to scaffold argumentation, enhance access, and reduce the influence of exclusionary linguistic norms and biases which are embedded in prestigious registers. At the same time, the chapter cautions against both overclaiming, which leads to unrealistic expectations, and underclaiming, which risks missed opportunities for AI-assisted engagement. The chapter concludes by identifying future research directions to maximise the democratic potential of AI-assisted participation while embedding ethical safeguards to counteract the reproduction of linguistic inequalities.

Warning: This paper studies stereotypes and biases, and contains potentially disturbing examples, used for illustration purposes only. Our findings should not be interpreted as an argument against alignment. Instead, this paper highlights the need for principled approaches to more advanced alignment. Alignment aims to ensure that large language models (LLMs) behave safely and reliably, including by avoiding unsafe inferences. However, we show that such safety-oriented behaviors can misfire: models may reject warranted conclusions even when they are explicitly supported by context. We call this failure mode misfired alignment, where alignment-induced changes cause LLMs to override explicit evidence. To quantify this phenomenon, specifically on stereotype-related alignment, we introduce VETO, a benchmark consisting of 2,032 BBQ-derived contrastive pairs, and define a new metric, Misfired Alignment Rate (MAR), which measures on a 0 to 100 scale how often a model fails on a stereotype-related question but succeeds on its contrastive counterpart. We benchmark 25 LLMs on VETO, and show that all LLMs, including the most recent ones, exhibit non-trivial (4.7 to 18.9%) MARs while all human participants achieve 0.0% MAR. Controlled priming experiments further show that alignment-induced cues can substantially amplify MAR across LLMs, indicating that these failures are not merely artifacts of individual examples but can be induced by safety-related framing. Mechanistic analyses on open-weight LLMs reveal late-layer suppression of evidence-supported answers, and comparisons between instruct and base LLMs suggest that this suppression emerges after instruction training. These findings show that current alignment methods can overgeneralize surface-level safety cues, to the point of overriding objective evidence, motivating more work on alignment objectives that better preserve contextual grounding.

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.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become embedded in everyday communication, capturing regional linguistic variation is essential for reliable and equitable language use. In Portuguese, European (pt-PT) and Brazilian (pt-BR) varieties remain unevenly represented, with pt-BR dominating in data quantity, while LLM preference for Portuguese variants remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce P3B3, an expert-curated language variety agnostic benchmark of conversational prompts, along with an evaluation framework for measuring variety bias and controllability. Experiments on several models show that most LLMs exhibit a strong bias toward pt-BR, with variation in controllability across models. These results highlight the need for more balanced multilingual representation across language varieties.

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.

Faithful and robust pronoun use is important for fair and coherent generations, yet large language models largely fail when multiple referents use different pronouns. To study the interplay of reasoning, repetition, and bias in this task, prior work relies exclusively on behavioural approaches, which may not reflect a model's internal workings. Therefore, we provide a mechanistic, model-internal perspective on pronoun fidelity, testing whether three mechanisms -- group entity binding (G), recency bias (R), and stereotypical bias (S) -- are causally implemented across several SOTA language models. Using Boundless Distributed Alignment Search, we find all three coexist as causal subspaces distributed across network depth. No single mechanism fully explains model behaviour, but a combination of the three consistently accounts for 91-99.5%. An attention head analysis further reveals two competing copying routes; group binding and stereotype share a localized concept-level route that retrieves a bound occupation-pronoun unit, while recency uses a distributed token-level route that repeats surface forms. In sum, pronoun fidelity arises from competition between simultaneously active causal subspaces.

Multilingual large language models (LLMs) depend on subword tokenization to bridge discrete text and continuous neural representation. State-of-the-art multilingual LLMs often use Byte-level Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenizers that structurally favor high-resource languages and Latin scripts. For speakers of underrepresented languages, particularly those across Southeast Asia, this bias inflates inference costs and widens cross-lingual capability gaps. We present the first systematic comparison of equitable tokenizers on a unified benchmark spanning 11 Southeast Asian languages. Beyond tokenizer-level analysis of compression efficiency and cross-lingual equity, we assess downstream task performance through controlled 1.5B-parameter language model training using the same training data. Our results show that Parity-aware BPE lies on the Pareto frontier of the efficiency-equity trade-off, achieving strong compression parity at competitive cost. Morphology-Driven Byte Encoding delivers the best semantic reasoning performance through morphologically richer representations, albeit at a higher computational expense. Byte Latent Transformer underperforms on downstream tasks, possibly because its architectural assumptions misalign with the constraints of limited low-resource training data. Together, our findings demonstrate that cross-lingual fairness and tokenization efficiency are not fundamentally at odds, and offer practical guidance for designing equitable multilingual models.

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.

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.

Gender bias in AI-generated stories is a well-documented problem. While much attention has been paid to reducing or mitigating this bias, it is not always clear whether interventions produce genuinely fairer results. To investigate this issue, we examine how large language models (LLMs) handle gender assignment in a narrative context that is popular, highly ambiguous, and also known to closely reproduce human stereotypes: stories about talking animals. We prompt six leading LLMs to complete an English-language story about seven different anthropomorphic animal characters whose gender is unstated. We additionally iterate with four different narrative settings and a range of model temperatures. Across the 23.8K stories, we find that models frequently avoid gendering the animal character in the story (19% on average) or use gender-neutral language like "it" or "its" (38.2% on average). However, when gender is assigned, there is a significant masculine bias. Feminine animal characters are virtually absent, present in just 2.2% of stories vs. 40.6% that feature masculine characters. Our findings point to a broader argument: neutrality bites. In other words, models that prioritize neutrality to address social bias may actually contribute to the erasure of marginalized perspectives and identities. We suggest that alternative strategies beyond neutrality need to be pursued, such as ones that more equally distribute social possibilities across imagined subjects.

Debiasing methods based on principal component analysis (PCA) are broadly used to reduce gender bias in word embeddings used in LLMs, yet it remains unclear what aspects of bias they actually remove and how destructive this process is. These methods are based on the understanding that bias resides in a low-dimensional subspace, with the assumption that most of it can be captured by a few principal components. In this work, we conduct a systematic geometric analysis of PCA-based gender debiasing and investigate what is actually removed from the embedding space. Our experiments across multiple embeddings show that direct gender bias is primarily concentrated in the first principal component, supporting the low-rank bias hypothesis. However, associative bias measured by WEAT does not align with these principal directions and is instead spread across multiple embedding dimensions. Furthermore, as expected, we demonstrate that removing an increasing number of principal components leads to a consistent degradation of the embedding geometry, affecting semantic structure and vector relationships. These results reveal that PCA-based debiasing operates as a trade-off: while it effectively reduces certain forms of direct bias, it fails to eliminate distributed associations and introduces geometric distortion. Moreover, there is no universal optimal level of debiasing, as the balance between bias reduction and semantic preservation depends on the chosen metric and embedding. Overall, our findings suggest that bias in word embeddings is not purely low-rank and that simple subspace removal methods may be insufficient for comprehensive debiasing.

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.