Robustness and Confounders in the Demographic Alignment of LLMs with Human Perceptions of Offensiveness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are known to exhibit demographic biases, yet few studies systematically evaluate these biases across multiple datasets or account for confounding factors. In this work, we examine LLM alignment with human annotations in five offensive language datasets, comprising approximately 220K annotations. Our findings reveal that while demographic traits, particularly race, influence alignment, these effects are inconsistent across datasets and often entangled with other factors. Confounders -- such as document difficulty, annotator sensitivity, and within-group agreement -- account for more variation in alignment patterns than demographic traits alone. Specifically, alignment increases with higher annotator sensitivity and group agreement, while greater document difficulty corresponds to reduced alignment. Our results underscore the importance of multi-dataset analyses and confounder-aware methodologies in developing robust measures of demographic bias in LLMs.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Nov 2024.
Builds on
31 of 64 references.
References · 31
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
- 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 752
- 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 736
- 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
- 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 518
- 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 380
- 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 314
- 2018Large Scale Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Twitter Abusive Behaviorcited by 270
- 2021Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detectioncited by 264
19 more
- 2020Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning researchcited by 260
- 2023SOLAR 10.7B: Scaling Large Language Models with Simple yet Effective Depth Up-Scalingcited by 172
- 2024Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulationscited by 169
- 2023Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speechcited by 166
- 2023NLPositionality: Characterizing Design Biases of Datasets and Modelscited by 94
- 2023When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Taskscited by 90
- 2023Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Taskscited by 89
- 2023When Do Annotator Demographics Matter? Measuring the Influence of Annotator Demographics with the POPQUORN Datasetcited by 52
- 2024Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrievalcited by 51
- 2020Comparing BERT against traditional machine learning text classificationcited by 46
- 2023The Ecological Fallacy in Annotation: Modelling Human Label Variation goes beyond Sociodemographicscited by 46
- 2024The Perspectivist Paradigm Shift: Assumptions and Challenges of Capturing Human Labelscited by 38
- 2024Human and LLM Biases in Hate Speech Annotations: A Socio-Demographic Analysis of Annotators and Targetscited by 31
- 2024"They are uncultured": Unveiling Covert Harms and Social Threats in LLM Generated Conversationscited by 25
- 2024Annotation alignment: Comparing LLM and human annotations of conversational safetycited by 23
- 2021The Origin and Value of Disagreement Among Data Labelers: A Case Study of the Individual Difference in Hate Speech Annotationcited by 15
- 2023Annotation Sensitivity: Training Data Collection Methods Affect Model Performancecited by 14
- 2024Which Demographics do LLMs Default to During Annotation?cited by 10
- 2024Benchmarking zero-shot stance detection with FlanT5-XXL: Insights from training data, prompting, and decoding strategies into its near-SoTA performancecited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
7 papers.
- 2025Beyond Demographics: Fine-tuning Large Language Models to Predict Individuals' Subjective Text Perceptionscited by 33
- 2025Generative Exaggeration in LLM Social Agents: Consistency, Bias, and Toxicitycited by 9
- 2024SubData: Bridging Heterogeneous Datasets to Enable Theory-Driven Evaluation of Political and Demographic Perspectives in LLMscited by 3
- 2025Are Economists Always More Introverted? Analyzing Consistency in Persona-Assigned LLMscited by 3
- 2026Demographic Prompting at Scale: When More Attributes Hurt LLM--Human Agreementcited by 0
- 2026PALMs: Using Multi Construct-Grounded Rationales for Modeling Population Preferences in LLMscited by 0
- 2026LLM-as-a-Demographic: Whom Sociodemographic Prompting Helps, and Whom It Hurtscited by 0
- 2026LLM-as-a-Demographic: Whom Sociodemographic Prompting Helps, and Whom It Hurts31 Aug 2026
- 2026PALMs: Using Multi Construct-Grounded Rationales for Modeling Population Preferences in LLMs2 Aug 2026
- 2026Demographic Prompting at Scale: When More Attributes Hurt LLM--Human Agreement12 Jul 2026
- 2025Generative Exaggeration in LLM Social Agents: Consistency, Bias, and Toxicity1 Jul 2025
- 2025Are Economists Always More Introverted? Analyzing Consistency in Persona-Assigned LLMs3 Jun 2025
- 2025Beyond Demographics: Fine-tuning Large Language Models to Predict Individuals' Subjective Text Perceptions28 Feb 2025
- 2024SubData: Bridging Heterogeneous Datasets to Enable Theory-Driven Evaluation of Political and Demographic Perspectives in LLMs21 Dec 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Operationalizing Pluralistic Values in Large Language Model Alignment Reveals Trade-offs in Safety, Inclusivity, and Model Behavior
- 2025Do LLMs Align Human Values Regarding Social Biases? Judging and Explaining Social Biases with LLMs
- 2024Uncovering Factor Level Preferences to Improve Human-Model Alignment
- 2024Bias and Volatility: A Statistical Framework for Evaluating Large Language Model's Stereotypes and the Associated Generation Inconsistency
- 2026The Wrong Kind of Right: Quantifying and Localizing Misfired Alignment in LLMs
- 2026Alignment Reduces Expressed but Not Encoded Gender Bias: A Unified Framework and Study
- 2025Is LLM an Overconfident Judge? Unveiling the Capabilities of LLMs in Detecting Offensive Language with Annotation Disagreement
- 2024The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models