Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Measuring Gender and Racial Biases in Large Language Models

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

arxiv 2403.15281 v1 pith:3M5IVRSL submitted 2024-03-22 econ.GN q-fin.EC

classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords socialbiasesdecisionoutcomesacrosscandidatesgroupsmaking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In traditional decision making processes, social biases of human decision makers can lead to unequal economic outcomes for underrepresented social groups, such as women, racial or ethnic minorities. Recently, the increasing popularity of Large language model based artificial intelligence suggests a potential transition from human to AI based decision making. How would this impact the distributional outcomes across social groups? Here we investigate the gender and racial biases of OpenAIs GPT, a widely used LLM, in a high stakes decision making setting, specifically assessing entry level job candidates from diverse social groups. Instructing GPT to score approximately 361000 resumes with randomized social identities, we find that the LLM awards higher assessment scores for female candidates with similar work experience, education, and skills, while lower scores for black male candidates with comparable qualifications. These biases may result in a 1 or 2 percentage point difference in hiring probabilities for otherwise similar candidates at a certain threshold and are consistent across various job positions and subsamples. Meanwhile, we also find stronger pro female and weaker anti black male patterns in democratic states. Our results demonstrate that this LLM based AI system has the potential to mitigate the gender bias, but it may not necessarily cure the racial bias. Further research is needed to comprehend the root causes of these outcomes and develop strategies to minimize the remaining biases in AI systems. As AI based decision making tools are increasingly employed across diverse domains, our findings underscore the necessity of understanding and addressing the potential unequal outcomes to ensure equitable outcomes across social groups.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Guiding LLM Decision-Making with Fairness Reward Models

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single process-level reward model, trained on weakly labeled biased versus unbiased reasoning, transfers across tasks and models to reduce equalized odds gaps in LLM decision-making.

  2. Training Large Language Models for Self-Explanation Faithfulness

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  3. FairI Tales: Evaluation of Fairness in Indian Contexts with a Focus on Bias and Stereotypes

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new India-focused benchmark shows that popular LLMs exhibit measurable negative bias against marginalized Indian identities and frequently reinforce caste, religion, region, and tribe stereotypes.

  4. Evaluate Bias without Manual Test Sets: A Concept Representation Perspective for LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    BiasLens uses concept activation vectors and sparse autoencoders to estimate LLM bias from internal representations, reporting moderate to strong agreement with behavioral bias metrics in a small evaluation.

  5. AI, Digital Platforms, and the New Systemic Risk

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The AI Act's focus on frontier models and market impact wrongly excludes discrimination at scale and hallucinations, which should also count as systemic risks.

Pith tools