Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2409.14583

LLM Bias Evaluation: Gender, Racial, and Age Disparities in Occupational and Crime Scenarios

Vishal Mirza·Rahul Kulkarni·Aakanksha Jadhav
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

LLM bias evaluation is critical as large language models (LLMs) increasingly influence high-stakes decisions. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of gender, racial, and age disparities in leading LLMs, revealing that debiasing efforts often create new fairness trade-offs. Recent advancements in LLMs have been notable, yet widespread enterprise adoption remains limited due to various constraints. This paper examines bias in LLMs - a crucial issue affecting their usability, reliability, and fairness. Our study evaluates gender bias in occupational scenarios and gender, age, and racial bias in crime scenarios across four leading LLMs released in 2024: Gemini 1.5 Pro, Llama 3 70B, Claude 3 Opus, and GPT-4o. Findings reveal that LLMs often depict female characters more frequently than male ones in various occupations, showing a 37% deviation from US BLS data. In crime scenarios, deviations from US FBI data are 54% for gender, 28% for race, and 17% for age. Critically, we observe that efforts to reduce gender and racial bias often lead to outcomes that may over-index one sub-class, potentially exacerbating disparities - a "debiasing paradox" that highlights the limitations of current bias mitigation techniques and underscores the need for more effective approaches.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Vishal Mirza, Rahul Kulkarni, Aakanksha Jadhav. 2024-09-22. LLM Bias Evaluation: Gender, Racial, and Age Disparities in Occupational and Crime Scenarios. https://doi.org/10.1109/cai64502.2025.00045

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗