PreprintCited by 80Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

On Second Thought, Let’s Not Think Step by Step! Bias and Toxicity in Zero-Shot Reasoning

Open access
Shaikh, Omar, Zhang, Hongxin, Held, William, Bernstein, Michael, Yang, Diyi·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Generating a Chain of Thought (CoT) has been shown to consistently improve large language model (LLM) performance on a wide range of NLP tasks. However, prior work has mainly focused on logical reasoning tasks (e.g. arithmetic, commonsense QA); it remains unclear whether improvements hold for more diverse types of reasoning, especially in socially situated contexts. Concretely, we perform a controlled evaluation of zero-shot CoT across two socially sensitive domains: harmful questions and stereotype benchmarks. We find that zero-shot CoT reasoning in sensitive domains significantly increases a model's likelihood to produce harmful or undesirable output, with trends holding across different prompt formats and model variants. Furthermore, we show that harmful CoTs increase with model size, but decrease with improved instruction following. Our work suggests that zero-shot CoT should be used with caution on socially important tasks, especially when marginalized groups or sensitive topics are involved.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2212.08061

Cites

53 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prompting approaches can reduce the sensitivity of CoT explanations to input perturbations and stereotypes, which our findings on prompting for debiasing corroborate.

    “Prompting approaches can reduce the sensitivity of CoT explanations to input perturbations and stereotypes (Shaikh et al., 2022;Ganguli et al., 2023;Shi et al., 2023), which our findings on prompting for debiasing corroborate.”

    From Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting (2023) · cites this paper as Shaikh et al., 2022

    Section 5.4, “Prompting with Instruction Mitigations” (page unavailable), reports that an explicit instruction reduced CoT’s adverse effect on stereotype-benchmark accuracy for TD3. It does not establish that prompting reduces the sensitivity of CoT explanations to input perturbations; it measures benchmark outcomes rather than that property of explanations. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. 2016. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to home- maker? debiasing word embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29.
  2. Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03401. · arXiv
  3. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaikh, O., Zhang, H., Held, W., Bernstein, M., & Yang, D.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
4454-4470
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385571830
Cited by
76
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16
FWCI
19.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2247357)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
chain-of-thought prompting, zero-shot reasoning, large language models, bias, toxicity, instruction following, model size effects, marginalized communities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review