PreprintCited by 17Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Measuring Implicit Bias in Explicitly Unbiased Large Language Models

Open access
Bai, Xuechunzi, Wang, Angelina, Sucholutsky, Ilia, Griffiths, Thomas L.·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can pass explicit social bias tests but still harbor implicit biases, similar to humans who endorse egalitarian beliefs yet exhibit subtle biases. Measuring such implicit biases can be a challenge: as LLMs become increasingly proprietary, it may not be possible to access their embeddings and apply existing bias measures; furthermore, implicit biases are primarily a concern if they affect the actual decisions that these systems make. We address both challenges by introducing two new measures of bias: LLM Implicit Bias, a prompt-based method for revealing implicit bias; and LLM Decision Bias, a strategy to detect subtle discrimination in decision-making tasks. Both measures are based on psychological research: LLM Implicit Bias adapts the Implicit Association Test, widely used to study the automatic associations between concepts held in human minds; and LLM Decision Bias operationalizes psychological results indicating that relative evaluations between two candidates, not absolute evaluations assessing each independently, are more diagnostic of implicit biases. Using these measures, we found pervasive stereotype biases mirroring those in society in 8 value-aligned models across 4 social categories (race, gender, religion, health) in 21 stereotypes (such as race and criminality, race and weapons, gender and science, age and negativity). Our prompt-based LLM Implicit Bias measure correlates with existing language model embedding-based bias methods, but better predicts downstream behaviors measured by LLM Decision Bias. These new prompt-based measures draw from psychology's long history of research into measuring stereotype biases based on purely observable behavior; they expose nuanced biases in proprietary value-aligned LLMs that appear unbiased according to standard benchmarks.

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.2402.04105

Cites

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?

  • LLMs can mimic biases and other deficiencies from their training data or even outright plagiarize.

    “LLMs can mimic biases and other deficiencies from their training data (38–41) or even outright plagiarize (42).”

    From Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Abstract and §3.1 report stereotype biases in LLMs that mirror societal stereotypes, supporting the bias portion of the claim. The cited paper does not establish that those biases came from training data or address other deficiencies. The separate plagiarism claim is attached to citation 42, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. A. Abid, M. Farooqi, and J. Zou. Persistent anti-muslim bias in large language models. AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES), 2021.
  2. J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  3. G. W. Allport. The nature of prejudice. Addison-wesley, 1954.
  4. D. M. Amodio and P. G. Devine. Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4):652, 2006.
  5. B. A. Ba, D. Knox, J. Mummolo, and R. Rivera. The role of officer race and gender in police-civilian interactions in chicago. Science, 371(6530):696-702, 2021.
  6. Y. Bai, A. Jones, K. Ndousse, A. Askell, A. Chen, N. DasSarma, D. Drain, S. Fort, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022. · arXiv
  7. J. A. Bargh, M. Chen, and L. Burrows. Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2):230, 1996.
  8. M. Bertrand and S. Mullainathan. Are emily and greg more employable than lakisha and jamal? a field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4):991-1013, 2004.
  9. L. Bian, S.-J. Leslie, and A. Cimpian. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children's interests. Science, 355(6323):389-391, 2017.
  10. M. Binz and E. Schulz. Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 2023.
  11. S. L. Blodgett, S. Barocas, H. D. III, and H. Wallach. Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of "bias" in NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020.
  12. S. L. Blodgett, G. Lopez, A. Olteanu, R. Sim, and H. Wallach. Stereotyping norwegian salmon: An inventory of pitfalls in fairness benchmark datasets. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1004-1015, 2021.
  13. E. S. Bogardus. Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9:299-308, 1925.
  14. T. Bolukbasi, K.-W. Chang, J. Y. Zou, V. Saligrama, and A. T. Kalai. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016.
  15. C. M. Brendl, A. B. Markman, and C. Messner. How do indirect measures of evaluation work? evaluating the inference of prejudice in the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5):760, 2001.
  16. A. Caliskan, J. J. Bryson, and A. Narayanan. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334):183-186, 2017.
  17. Y. T. Cao, Y. Pruksachatkun, K.-W. Chang, R. Gupta, V. Kumar, J. Dhamala, and A. Galstyan. On the intrinsic and extrinsic fairness evaluation metrics for contextualized language representations. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2022.
  18. S. Chaiken and Y. Trope. Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press, 1999.
  19. T. E. Charlesworth, A. Caliskan, and M. R. Banaji. Historical representations of social groups across 200 years of word embeddings from Google Books. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(28):e2121798119, 2022.
  20. M. Cheng, E. Durmus, and D. Jurafsky. Marked personas: Using natural language prompts to measure stereotypes in language models. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2023.
  21. S. Cheryan, S. A. Ziegler, A. K. Montoya, and L. Jiang. Why are some stem fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological bulletin, 143(1):1, 2017.
  22. J. Correll, B. Wittenbrink, M. T. Crawford, and M. S. Sadler. Stereotypic vision: how stereotypes disambiguate visual stimuli. Journal of personality and social psychology, 108(2):219, 2015.
  23. F. Crosby, S. Bromley, and L. Saxe. Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87(3):546, 1980.
  24. D. Demszky, D. Yang, D. S. Yeager, C. J. Bryan, M. Clapper, S. Chandhok, J. C. Eichstaedt, C. Hecht, J. Jamieson, M. Johnson, et al. Using large language models in psychology. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(11):688-701, 2023.
  25. P. G. Devine. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(1):5, 1989.
  26. P. G. Devine. Implicit prejudice and stereotyping: how automatic are they? introduction to the special section. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5):757, 2001.
  27. J. Dhamala, T. Sun, V. Kumar, S. Krishna, Y. Pruksachatkun, K.-W. Chang, and R. Gupta. Bold: Dataset and metrics for measuring biases in open-ended language generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 862-872, 2021.
  28. J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner. The effects of race, status, and ability on helping behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, pages 192-203, 1981.
  29. A. H. Eagly and V. J. Steffen. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4):735, 1984.
  30. J. L. Eberhardt. Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Penguin, 2020.
  31. J. L. Eberhardt, P. G. Davies, V. J. Purdie-Vaughns, and S. L. Johnson. Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psycholog- ical science, 17(5):383-386, 2006.
  32. J. L. Eberhardt, P. A. Goff, V. J. Purdie, and P. G. Davies. Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(6):876, 2004.
  33. N. Ellemers. Gender stereotypes. Annual review of psychology, 69:275-298, 2018.
  34. R. H. Fazio and M. A. Olson. Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual review of psychology, 54(1):297-327, 2003.
  35. S. T. Fiske, A. J. Cuddy, P. Glick, and J. Xu. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6):878-902, 2002.
  36. P. S. Forscher, C. K. Lai, J. R. Axt, C. R. Ebersole, M. Herman, P. G. Devine, and B. A. Nosek. A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 117(3):522, 2019.
  37. D. Ganguli, A. Askell, N. Schiefer, T. I. Liao, K. Lukošiūtė, A. Chen, A. Goldie, A. Mirhoseini, andCatherine Olsson, D. Hernandez, D. Drain, D. Li, E. Tran-Johnson, E. Perez, J. Kernion, J. Kerr, J. Mueller, J. Landau, K. Ndousse, K. Nguyen, L. Lovitt, M. Sellitto, N. Elhage, N. Mercado, N. DasSarma, O. Rausch, R. Lasenby, R. Larson, S. K. Sam Ringer, S. Kadavath, S. Johnston, S. Kravec, S. E. Showk, T. Lanham, T. Telleen-Lawton, T. Henighan, T. Hume, Y. Bai, B. M. Zac Hatfield-Dodds, D. Amodei, N. Joseph, S. McCandlish, T. Brown, C. Olah, J. Clark, S. R. Bowman, and J. Kaplan. The capacity for moral self-correction in large language models. arXiv:2302.07459, 2023. · arXiv
  38. N. Garg, L. Schiebinger, D. Jurafsky, and J. Zou. Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16):E3635- E3644, 2018.
  39. P. Glick and S. T. Fiske. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. In Social cognition, pages 116-160. Routledge, 2018.
  40. S. Goldfarb-Tarrant, R. Marchant, R. M. Sanchez, M. Pandya, and A. Lopez. Intrinsic bias met- rics do not correlate with application bias. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2021.
  41. P. Graf and D. L. Schacter. Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 11(3):501, 1985.
  42. A. G. Greenwald and M. R. Banaji. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1):4, 1995.
  43. A. G. Greenwald and M. R. Banaji. The implicit revolution: Reconceiving the relation between conscious and unconscious. American Psychologist, 72(9):861, 2017.
  44. A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee, and J. L. Schwartz. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6):1464, 1998.
  45. A. G. Greenwald, B. A. Nosek, and M. R. Banaji. Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. an improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2):197, 2003.
  46. A. G. Greenwald, M. A. Oakes, and H. G. Hoffman. Targets of discrimination: Effects of race on responses to weapons holders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4):399-405, 2003.
  47. A. G. Greenwald, T. A. Poehlman, E. L. Uhlmann, and M. R. Banaji. Understanding and using the implicit association test: Iii. meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1):17, 2009.
  48. W. Guo and A. Caliskan. Detecting emergent intersectional biases: Contextualized word embeddings contain a distribution of human-like biases. AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES), 2021.
  49. W. Guo and A. Caliskan. Detecting emergent intersectional biases: Contextualized word embeddings contain a distribution of human-like biases. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 122-133, 2021.
  50. M. E. Heilman. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of social issues, 57(4):657-674, 2001.
  51. V. Hofmann, P. R. Kalluri, D. Jurafsky, and S. King. Dialect prejudice predicts ai decisions about people's character, employability, and criminality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00742, 2024. · arXiv
  52. D. Katz and K. Braly. Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28(3):280, 1933.
  53. N. Kervyn, V. Yzerbyt, and C. M. Judd. Compensation between warmth and competence: Antecedents and consequences of a negative relation between the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1):155-187, 2010.
  54. H. R. Kirk, Y. Jun, F. Volpin, H. Iqbal, E. Benussi, F. Dreyer, A. Shtedritski, and Y. Asano. Bias out-of-the-box: An empirical analysis of intersectional occupational biases in popular generative language models. Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021.
  55. A. M. Koenig and A. H. Eagly. Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups' roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3):371, 2014.
  56. B. Kurdi, A. E. Seitchik, J. R. Axt, T. J. Carroll, A. Karapetyan, N. Kaushik, D. Tomezsko, A. G. Greenwald, and M. R. Banaji. Relationship between the implicit association test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 74(5):569, 2019.
  57. F. Ladhak, E. Durmus, M. Suzgun, T. Zhang, D. Jurafsky, K. McKeown, and T. Hashimoto. When do pre-training biases propagate to downstream tasks? a case study in text summarization. Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), 2023.
  58. P. Liang, R. Bommasani, T. Lee, D. Tsipras, D. Soylu, M. Yasunaga, Y. Zhang, D. Narayanan, Y. Wu, A. Kumar, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110, 2022. · arXiv
  59. E. Llaudet and K. Imai. Data analysis for social science: A friendly and practical introduction. Princeton University Press, 2022.
  60. J. G. Lu, R. E. Nisbett, and M. W. Morris. Why east asians but not south asians are underrep- resented in leadership positions in the united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9):4590-4600, 2020.
  61. C. May, A. Wang, S. Bordia, S. R. Bowman, and R. Rudinger. On measuring social biases in sentence encoders. Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), 2019.
  62. M. J. Monteith, P. G. Devine, and J. R. Zuwerink. Self-directed versus other-directed affect as a consequence of prejudice-related discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2):198, 1993.
  63. M. Nadeem, A. Bethke, and S. Reddy. Stereoset: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, 2021.
  64. B. A. Nosek. Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4):565, 2005.
  65. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
  66. A. Ovalle, P. Goyal, J. Dhamala, Z. Jaggers, K.-W. Chang, A. Galstyan, R. S. Zemel, and R. Gupta. "i'm fully who i am": Towards centering transgender and non-binary voices to mea- sure biases in openaiopen language generation. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAccT), 2023.
  67. E. L. Paluck, R. Porat, C. S. Clark, and D. P. Green. Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72:533-560, 2021.
  68. A. Parrish, A. Chen, N. Nangia, V. Padmakumar, J. Phang, J. Thompson, P. M. Htut, and S. Bowman. Bbq: A hand-built bias benchmark for question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2086-2105, 2022.
  69. X. Qi, Y. Zeng, T. Xie, P.-Y. Chen, R. Jia, P. Mittal, and P. Henderson. Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to! arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03693, 2023. · arXiv
  70. T. Riddle and S. Sinclair. Racial disparities in school-based disciplinary actions are associated with county-level rates of racial bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(17):8255-8260, 2019.
  71. N. Rüsch, P. W. Corrigan, A. R. Todd, and G. V. Bodenhausen. Implicit self-stigma in people with mental illness. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198(2):150-153, 2010.
  72. D. L. Schacter. Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 13(3):501, 1987.
  73. U. Schimmack. Invalid claims about the validity of implicit association tests by prisoners of the implicit social-cognition paradigm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2):435-442, 2021.
  74. H. Schuman. Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations. Harvard University Press, 1997.
  75. O. Shaikh, H. Zhang, W. Held, M. Bernstein, and D. Yang. On second thought, let's not think step by step! bias and toxicity in zero-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08061, 2022. · arXiv
  76. E. Sheng, K.-W. Chang, P. Natarajan, and N. Peng. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2019.
  77. C. Si, Z. Gan, Z. Yang, S. Wang, J. Wang, J. Boyd-Graber, and L. Wang. Prompting GPT-3 to be reliable. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09150, 2022. · arXiv
  78. I. Solaiman and C. Dennison. Process for adapting language models to society (PALMS) with values-targeted datasets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5861-5873, 2021.
  79. R. Steed, S. Panda, A. Kobren, and M. Wick. Upstream mitigation is not all you need: Testing the bias transfer hypothesis in pre-trained language models. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2022.
  80. A. Tamkin, A. Askell, L. Lovitt, E. Durmus, N. Joseph, S. Kravec, K. Nguyen, J. Kaplan, and D. Ganguli. Evaluating and mitigating discrimination in language model decisions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03689, 2023. · arXiv
  81. H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y. Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, D. Bikel, L. Blecher, C. C. Ferrer, M. Chen, G. Cucurull, D. Esiobu, J. Fernandes, J. Fu, W. Fu, B. Fuller, C. Gao, V. Goswami, N. Goyal, A. Hartshorn, S. Hosseini, R. Hou, H. Inan, M. Kardas, V. Kerkez, M. Khabsa, I. Kloumann, A. Korenev, P. S. Koura, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lavril, J. Lee, D. Liskovich, Y. Lu, Y. Mao, X. Martinet, T. Mihaylov, P. Mishra, I. Molybog, Y. Nie, A. Poulton, J. Reizenstein, R. Rungta, K. Saladi, A. Schelten, R. Silva, E. M. Smith, R. Subramanian, X. E. Tan, B. Tang, R. Taylor, A. Williams, J. X. Kuan, P. Xu, Z. Yan, I. Zarov, Y. Zhang, A. Fan, M. Kambadur, S. Narang, A. Rodriguez, R. Stojnic, S. Edunov, and T. Scialom. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  82. Y. Wan, G. Pu, J. Sun, A. Garimella, K.-W. Chang, and N. Peng. "kelly is a warm person, joseph is a role model": Gender biases in llm-generated reference letters. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) Findings, 2023.
  83. B. Wang, W. Chen, H. Pei, C. Xie, M. Kang, C. Zhang, C. Xu, Z. Xiong, R. Dutta, R. Schaeffer, et al. Decodingtrust: A comprehensive assessment of trustworthiness in GPT models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11698, 2023. · arXiv
  84. C. O. Word, M. P. Zanna, and J. Cooper. The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of experimental social psychology, 10(2):109-120, 1974.
  85. K. Zhu, J. Wang, J. Zhou, Z. Wang, H. Chen, Y. Wang, L. Yang, W. Ye, N. Z. Gong, Y. Zhang, et al. Promptbench: Towards evaluating the robustness of large language models on adversarial prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04528, 2023. [-0.210, 0.277] 0.053 [-0.154, 0.260] 0.197 [-0.077, 0.471] -0.266 [-0.529, -0.003] -0.044 [-0.203, 0.115] -0.035 [-0.139, 0.069] -0.032 [-0.223, 0.159] -0.018 [-0.234, 0.198] -0.014 [-0.090, 0.062] Hispanic 0.022 [-0.227, 0.271] -0.124 [-0.353, 0.105] -0.122 [-0.399, 0.155] 0.233 [-0.033, 0.499] 0.021 [-0.137, 0.180] 0.103 [-0.027, 0.233] -0.139 [-0.298, 0.019] 0.165 [-0.039, 0.369] 0.020 [-0.057, 0.096] Asian 0.018 [-0.232, 0.267] -0.060 [-0.295, 0.176] -0.002 [-0.282, 0.277] 0.067 [-0.205, 0.338] -0.071 [-0.257, 0.115] -0.137 [-0.258, -0.017] 0.112 [-0.084, 0.308] -0.026 [-0.233, 0.181] -0.013 [-0.091, 0.066] Arab/Muslim 0.116 [-0.150, 0.382] 0.078 [-0.129, 0.285] 0.036 [-0.242, 0.315] -0.079 [-0.356, 0.198] -0.032 [-0.175, 0.111] -0.086 [-0.205, 0.033] -0.046 [-0.189, 0.097] 0.128 [-0.071, 0.327] 0.014 [-0.061, 0.089] · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bai, X., Wang, A., Sucholutsky, I., & Griffiths, T. L.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391632026
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
NOMIS Stiftung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
implicit bias, large language models, Implicit Association Test, stereotype bias, decision bias, racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes, age stereotypes, health stereotypes, automatic associations, relative evaluation

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