Pith. sign in

REVIEW 9 cited by

A Survey on Fairness 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 2308.10149 v2 pith:MGW3OIR7 submitted 2023-08-20 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords llmsfairnessresearchbiasbiasesdebiasingdevelopmentevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown powerful performance and development prospects and are widely deployed in the real world. However, LLMs can capture social biases from unprocessed training data and propagate the biases to downstream tasks. Unfair LLM systems have undesirable social impacts and potential harms. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of related research on fairness in LLMs. Considering the influence of parameter magnitude and training paradigm on research strategy, we divide existing fairness research into oriented to medium-sized LLMs under pre-training and fine-tuning paradigms and oriented to large-sized LLMs under prompting paradigms. First, for medium-sized LLMs, we introduce evaluation metrics and debiasing methods from the perspectives of intrinsic bias and extrinsic bias, respectively. Then, for large-sized LLMs, we introduce recent fairness research, including fairness evaluation, reasons for bias, and debiasing methods. Finally, we discuss and provide insight on the challenges and future directions for the development of fairness in LLMs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 21 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. More Edits, More Stable: Understanding the Lifelong Normalization in Sequential Model Editing

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Online value-gradient normalization in lifelong LLM editing produces bounded, asymptotically orthogonal parameter updates; an explicit warm-up and full whitening (StableEdit) strengthen this effect and improve long-ho...

  2. AISPA: User-Centric System Prompt Auditing for Large Language Model Applications

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    A human-in-the-loop audit of system prompts from 88 commercial AI products finds protective instructions nearly universal yet incomplete, with ~40% of products containing at least one user-harmful directive.

  3. Whose fairness? Structural concentration in AI bias research

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bibliometric and semantic analysis of 692 AI-bias papers shows US-led structural concentration is strongest in the general-fairness domain that supplies definitions and benchmarks to the rest of the field.

  4. Efficiency vs. Alignment: Investigating Safety and Fairness Risks in Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Benign PEFT fine-tuning changes LLM safety and fairness: adapter-based methods (LoRA, IA3) preserve alignment better than prompt-based methods, and the base model strongly moderates outcomes.

  5. Toward Valid Measurement Of (Un)fairness For Generative AI: A Proposal For Systematization Through The Lens Of Fair Equality of Chances

    cs.CY 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Fair Equality of Chances-based framework decomposes GenAI unfairness into harms/benefits, morally arbitrary factors, and morally decisive factors to improve measurement validity.

  6. 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.

  7. A Close Reading Approach to Gender Narrative Biases in AI-Generated Stories

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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).

  8. Investigating Intersectional Bias in Large Language Models using Confidence Disparities in Coreference Resolution

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract claims LLMs show up to 40% coreference confidence disparities across intersectional identities, but the article body is an unrelated paper on robotic fruit handling.

  9. Ethical Medical Image Synthesis

    cs.CY 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A submission whose abstract and full text are two different papers on unrelated topics.

Pith tools