llm-bias

This paper investigates central tendency bias in multimodal LLMs used for clinical ordinal scoring of the Clock Drawing Test, finding that LLMs compress predictions toward the middle of the scale, disproportionately affecting critical extremes. The study extends the LLM-as-judge bias literature to clinical assessment, highlighting the need for calibration-aware evaluation before deployment.

This paper introduces a Probabilistic Graphical Model framework to causally audit LLM safety mechanisms, revealing that standard observational metrics overestimate demographic bias by ignoring context toxicity.

This paper investigates whether assigning personas to large language models induces human-like motivated reasoning, finding that persona-assigned LLMs show up to 9% reduced veracity discernment and are up to 90% more likely to evaluate scientific evidence in ways congruent with their induced political identity, with prompt-based debiasing largely ineffective.

This paper presents a large-scale audit of recommendation biases in LLM-based content curation across OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google using 540,000 simulated selections from Twitter/X, Bluesky, and Reddit data. The study finds that LLMs systematically amplify polarization, exhibit distinct toxicity handling trade-offs, and show significant political leaning bias favoring left-leaning authors despite right-leaning plurality in datasets.