REVIEW 2 cited by
Assessing Gender Bias in LLMs: Comparing LLM Outputs with Human Perceptions and Official Statistics
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
This study investigates gender bias in large language models (LLMs) by comparing their gender perception to that of human respondents, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, and a 50% no-bias benchmark. We created a new evaluation set using occupational data and role-specific sentences. Unlike common benchmarks included in LLM training data, our set is newly developed, preventing data leakage and test set contamination. Five LLMs were tested to predict the gender for each role using single-word answers. We used Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence to compare model outputs with human perceptions, statistical data, and the 50% neutrality benchmark. All LLMs showed significant deviation from gender neutrality and aligned more with statistical data, still reflecting inherent biases.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Training Large Language Models for Self-Explanation Faithfulness
RL fine-tuning with a counterfactual mention/influence reward raises LLM self-explanation faithfulness (Phi-CCT) from near zero to ~0.66 in-distribution for two 8B models, with partial transfer to held-out tasks.
-
A Close Reading Approach to Gender Narrative Biases in AI-Generated Stories
A close reading of 15 AI-generated stories finds that even when character counts are balanced, narrative roles, descriptions, and plot dynamics remain gender-stereotyped (e.g., every villain is male).
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.