Red-Teaming for Inducing Societal Bias in Large Language Models
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails
Abstract (arXiv)
Ensuring the safe deployment of AI systems is critical in industry settings where biased outputs can lead to significant operational, reputational, and regulatory risks. Thorough evaluation before deployment is essential to prevent these hazards. Red-teaming addresses this need by employing adversarial attacks to develop guardrails that detect and reject biased or harmful queries, enabling models to be retrained or steered away from harmful outputs. However, most red-teaming efforts focus on harmful or unethical instructions rather than addressing social bias, leaving this critical area under-explored despite its significant real-world impact, especially in customer-facing systems. We propose two bias-specific red-teaming methods, Emotional Bias Probe (EBP) and BiasKG, to evaluate how standard safety measures for harmful content affect bias. For BiasKG, we refactor natural language stereotypes into a knowledge graph. We use these attacking strategies to induce biased responses from several open- and closed-source language models. Unlike prior work, these methods specifically target social bias. We find our method increases bias in all models, even those trained with safety guardrails. Our work emphasizes uncovering societal bias in LLMs through rigorous evaluation, and recommends measures ensure AI safety in high-stakes industry deployments.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 24 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2024.
Builds on
24 of 42 references.
References · 24
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
- 2016ConceptNet 5.5: An Open Multilingual Graph of General Knowledgecited by 1,065
- 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 683
- 2023Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmapcited by 663
- 2020A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition and Applicationscited by 643
- 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 626
12 more
- 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 505
- 2023Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Studycited by 478
- 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 377
- 2023Certifying LLM Safety against Adversarial Promptingcited by 248
- 2023Red-Teaming Large Language Models using Chain of Utterances for Safety-Alignmentcited by 213
- 2023"Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letterscited by 196
- 2022GreaseLM: Graph REASoning Enhanced Language Models for Question Answeringcited by 170
- 2023Large Language Models Understand and Can be Enhanced by Emotional Stimulicited by 143
- 2021Can Machines Learn Morality? The Delphi Experimentcited by 140
- 2023An LLM can Fool Itself: A Prompt-Based Adversarial Attackcited by 111
- 2023Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBenchcited by 54
- 2023Can Instruction Fine-Tuned Language Models Identify Social Bias through Prompting?cited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.