Template-Based Probes Are Imperfect Lenses for Counterfactual Bias Evaluation in LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Bias in large language models (LLMs) has many forms, from overt discrimination to implicit stereotypes. Counterfactual bias evaluation is a widely used approach to quantifying bias and often relies on template-based probes that explicitly state group membership. It aims to measure whether the outcome of a task performed by an LLM is invariant to a change in group membership. In this work, we find that template-based probes can introduce systematic distortions in bias measurements. Specifically, we consistently find that such probes suggest that LLMs classify text associated with White race as negative at disproportionately elevated rates. This is observed consistently across a large collection of LLMs, over several diverse template-based probes, and with different classification approaches. We hypothesize that this arises artificially due to linguistic asymmetries present in LLM pretraining data, in the form of markedness, (e.g., Black president vs. president) and templates used for bias measurement (e.g., Black president vs. White president). These findings highlight the need for more rigorous methodologies in counterfactual bias evaluation, ensuring that observed disparities reflect genuine biases rather than artifacts of linguistic conventions.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Apr 2024.
Builds on
26 of 48 references.
References · 26
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
- 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 626
- 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 540
- 2023Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignmentcited by 394
- 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 346
- 2021Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Modelscited by 294
- 2023Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Modelscited by 204
14 more
- 2021Societal Biases in Language Generation: Progress and Challengescited by 201
- 2023"Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letterscited by 196
- 2023The Capacity for Moral Self-Correction in Large Language Modelscited by 171
- 2020CheXclusion: Fairness gaps in deep chest X-ray classifierscited by 153
- 2019Reducing Sentiment Bias in Language Models via Counterfactual Evaluationcited by 148
- 2023Auditing large language models: a three-layered approachcited by 135
- 2021Quantifying Social Biases in NLP: A Generalization and Empirical Comparison of Extrinsic Fairness Metricscited by 83
- 2024Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models via Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 49
- 2022American == White in Multimodal Language-and-Image AIcited by 39
- 2023Comparing Biases and the Impact of Multilingual Training across Multiple Languagescited by 36
- 2022Markedness in Visual Semantic AIcited by 29
- 2022Using Natural Sentences for Understanding Biases in Language Modelscited by 19
- 2023How Robust are LLMs to In-Context Majority Label Bias?cited by 13
- 2023Measuring Gender Bias in West Slavic Language Modelscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.