REVIEW 5 cited by
Social Bias Evaluation for Large Language Models Requires Prompt Variations
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
Warning: This paper contains examples of stereotypes and biases. Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit considerable social biases, and various studies have tried to evaluate and mitigate these biases accurately. Previous studies use downstream tasks as prompts to examine the degree of social biases for evaluation and mitigation. While LLMs' output highly depends on prompts, previous studies evaluating and mitigating bias have often relied on a limited variety of prompts. In this paper, we investigate the sensitivity of LLMs when changing prompt variations (task instruction and prompt, few-shot examples, debias-prompt) by analyzing task performance and social bias of LLMs. Our experimental results reveal that LLMs are highly sensitive to prompts to the extent that the ranking of LLMs fluctuates when comparing models for task performance and social bias. Additionally, we show that LLMs have tradeoffs between performance and social bias caused by the prompts. Less bias from prompt setting may result in reduced performance. Moreover, the ambiguity of instances is one of the reasons for this sensitivity to prompts in advanced LLMs, leading to various outputs. We recommend using diverse prompts, as in this study, to compare the effects of prompts on social bias in LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
DeFrame: Debiasing Large Language Models Against Framing Effects
LLM fairness scores shift substantially with positive vs negative framing of the same question, and DeFrame—a three-step self-revision prompt—reduces both average bias and this framing gap.
-
The Personalization Trap: How User Memory Alters Emotional Reasoning in LLMs
Adding user memory to LLMs degrades their emotional-intelligence test scores and systematically disadvantages marginalized user profiles.
-
ReliableEval: A Recipe for Stochastic LLM Evaluation via Method of Moments
ReliableEval estimates the minimum number of meaning-preserving prompt resamplings needed to make an LLM evaluation reliable, and applies it to show frontier LLMs are notably prompt-sensitive.
-
Obscured but Not Erased: Evaluating Nationality Bias in LLMs via Name-Based Bias Benchmarks
A name-substituted variant of the BBQ benchmark shows that LLMs retain nationality stereotypes even when explicit labels are removed, with smaller models showing more bias and lower accuracy.
-
Advertising in AI systems: Society must be vigilant
Generative AI outputs will likely carry embedded commercial content, and the paper proposes design principles, provenance tracking, and two debiasing strategies to preserve transparency.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.