REVIEW 5 cited by
What's in a Name? Auditing Large Language Models for Race and Gender Bias
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We employ an audit design to investigate biases in state-of-the-art large language models, including GPT-4. In our study, we prompt the models for advice involving a named individual across a variety of scenarios, such as during car purchase negotiations or election outcome predictions. We find that the advice systematically disadvantages names that are commonly associated with racial minorities and women. Names associated with Black women receive the least advantageous outcomes. The biases are consistent across 42 prompt templates and several models, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. While providing numerical, decision-relevant anchors in the prompt can successfully counteract the biases, qualitative details have inconsistent effects and may even increase disparities. Our findings underscore the importance of conducting audits at the point of LLM deployment and implementation to mitigate their potential for harm against marginalized communities.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
FairFund-Bench: Evaluating Distributive Bias in LLM Resource Allocation
Audit format (rate vs rank vs allocate; transparent vs disguised) reverses the apparent direction of LLM demographic bias, while causal framing of need dominates allocations by roughly an order of magnitude.
-
Fairness Is Not Enough: Auditing Competence and Intersectional Bias in AI-powered Resume Screening
Models that appear demographically neutral in AI resume screening can actually be incompetent evaluators, a pattern the paper calls the Illusion of Neutrality.
-
More or Less Wrong: A Benchmark for Directional Bias in LLM Comparative Reasoning
Comparative words in prompts can shift LLM answers toward the framed direction in simple arithmetic comparisons, with demographic terms amplifying the effect.
-
A Cross-Cultural Comparison of LLM-based Public Opinion Simulation: Evaluating Chinese and U.S. Models on Diverse Societies
Across U.S. and Chinese survey questions, DeepSeek, GPT-4o, Qwen2.5, and Llama-3.3 all show demographic overgeneralization, with no consistent home-field advantage for the Chinese model.
-
The Biased Samaritan: LLM biases in Perceived Kindness
Across ten commercial LLMs, demographic groups other than white male middle-aged were rated as more likely to help, while the control 'person' condition aligned with that majority baseline.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.