It is found that answer format does substantially alter measured outcomes, including reversals in order rankings, and the importance of treating answer format as a substantive component of LLM evaluation and motivate multi-format designs for more robust model assessment is highlighted.
Abstract
Gender bias or other social biases in large language models (LLMs) are frequently evaluated with question answering or survey benchmarks where the LLM needs to give a response in a predefined answer format. It is well known in survey science that the answer format has a substantial impact on answers, just as LLMs are sensitive to the prompt wording. However, to our knowledge it has not been studied yet how changes in answer format impact the measurement of gender bias in LLMs and their alignment with human response distributions. We evaluate three instruction-tuned models on the BBQ benchmark and OpinionQA survey data across closed-ended, Likert-scaled and open-ended formats, comparing bias measurement and distributional alignment under otherwise identical conditions. We find that answer format does substantially alter measured outcomes, including reversals in order rankings. These differences arise because each format elicits distinct response behaviours, such as forced-choice selection, scale-based distributions and refusal in free-text generation. Our findings highlight the importance of treating answer format as a substantive component of LLM evaluation and motivate multi-format designs for more robust model assessment.
The results show that LLMs systematically adapt their responses to align with prompt framing, even in factual contexts, which suggests that prompt framing can outweigh factual consistency in model responses.
Mudar Adas, Polina Tsvilodub, Michael Franke et al.· 0 citations
Benevolence bias is identified and measure, a small but consistent tendency for aligned LLMs to lean toward the kinder, safer, more socially approved answer on value-laden survey questions, and is easy to diagnose and straightforward to fix.
Yuanzi Li, Jun-Hao Wang, Minghui Liu et al.· 0 citations
Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally? We show that when prompts contain linguistic features more commonly used by women (hedges, tag questions, collective reference), they systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses across three document types and four models. These effects persist after controlling for prompt complexity and feature carry-over. Explicit gender cues like sign-off names are encoded in the same representational space as linguistic dialect - suggesting shared underlying mechanisms - yet linguistic register is far more influential, producing large, consistent effects where names produce none. Our results further reveal that post-hoc mitigation is challenging: because these patterns are culturally embedded and outside conscious control, users cannot easily avoid them through strategic self-presentation, and mechanistic analysis reveals that linguistic features are encoded in early transformer layers and entangled with other features. Our work calls for upstream consideration of the influences of linguistic variation to mitigate disparate impacts of LLM-mediated workplace communication.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of gender bias in LLM-based fake news detection using real-world data. We augment the LIAR benchmark with three gender variants of speaker job titles (Neutral, Male, Female) for each statement to test whether veracity judgments vary solely based on gender presentation. Six state-of-the-art LLMs are evaluated across multiple bias and fairness metrics. All models exhibit gender sensitivity: 9.79%-35.13% of statements receive inconsistent labels across the three variants, with Male-Female comparisons showing 6.5%-23.6% flip rates. Two primary bias manifestations are identified: instability (inconsistent judgments) and directionality (systematic favoritism). Five models show statistically significant directional effects, with the strongest effects displaying male-skeptic patterns. These findings demonstrate that gender bias undermines both reliability and fairness in LLM-based fake news detection, highlighting the need for bias-aware evaluation and mitigation strategies. The augmented dataset is publicly released to support future research.
Razieh Chalehchaleh, R. Farahbakhsh, N. Crespi· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate media, but whether their content perpetuates gender stereotypes is unknown: standard benchmarks rely on selection-based formats rather than long-form generation, and surveyed baselines for local gender associations are scarce outside the West. We collect gender associations for 22 occupational and domestic roles from 695 respondents across the United States, India, Kenya, and Nigeria, and evaluate eight LLMs under two regimes: direct questioning and media generation. Models track the surveyed associations under direct questioning but skew substantially more male under media generation in major local-language cells, consistent with the male bias documented in human-produced media. Outside the US, the shift is much smaller and non-significant under English prompting, so English-only or country-agnostic evaluation would miss this bias in the languages where these models are most deployed. Instruction prompting reduces the shift directionally, but trades off against alignment with the surveyed associations. Evaluating LLM gender bias for global deployment therefore requires generation-format testing, local-language prompting, and locally-collected human baselines.
Sharif Kazemi, Tanya Popli, Neil K. R. Sehgal et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
