HInter: Exposing Hidden Intersectional Bias in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) may portray discrimination towards certain individuals, especially those characterized by multiple attributes (aka intersectional bias). Discovering intersectional bias in LLMs is challenging, as it involves complex inputs on multiple attributes (e.g. race and gender). To address this challenge, we propose HInter, a test technique that synergistically combines mutation analysis, dependency parsing and metamorphic oracles to automatically detect intersectional bias in LLMs. HInter generates test inputs by systematically mutating sentences using multiple mutations, validates inputs via a dependency invariant and detects biases by checking the LLM response on the original and mutated sentences. We evaluate HInter using six LLM architectures and 18 LLM models (GPT3.5, Llama2, BERT, etc) and find that 14.61% of the inputs generated by HInter expose intersectional bias. Results also show that our dependency invariant reduces false positives (incorrect test inputs) by an order of magnitude. Finally, we observed that 16.62% of intersectional bias errors are hidden, meaning that their corresponding atomic cases do not trigger biases. Overall, this work emphasize the importance of testing LLMs for intersectional bias.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Mar 2025.
Builds on
18 of 42 references.
References · 18
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 380
- 2021LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in Englishcited by 310
- 2021Symbolic Knowledge Distillation: from General Language Models to Commonsense Modelscited by 270
- 2022WANLI: Worker and AI Collaboration for Natural Language Inference Dataset Creationcited by 202
- 2019Assessing Social and Intersectional Biases in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 135
- 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 126
- 2019FairVis: Visual Analytics for Discovering Intersectional Bias in Machine Learningcited by 93
- 2018Automated Directed Fairness Testingcited by 78
- 2024Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrievalcited by 51
- 2023A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challengescited by 41
- 2021Your fairness may vary: Pretrained language model fairness in toxic text classificationcited by 39
6 more
- 2019Automatic Testing and Improvement of Machine Translationcited by 36
- 2019Structure-Invariant Testing for Machine Translationcited by 28
- 2020Causal intersectionality for fair rankingcited by 12
- 2022Software Fairness: An Analysis and Surveycited by 8
- 2023Intergenerational Test Generation for Natural Language Processing Applicationscited by 2
- 2024Machine Translation Testing via Syntactic Tree Pruningcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.
- 2025No Free Lunch in Language Model Bias Mitigation? Targeted Bias Reduction Can Exacerbate Unmitigated LLM Biasescited by 7
- 2026Redirected, Not Removed: Task-Dependent Stereotyping Reveals the Limits of LLM Alignmentscited by 1
- 2026Towards a more efficient bias detection in financial language modelscited by 0
- 2026Redirected, Not Removed: Task-Dependent Stereotyping Reveals the Limits of LLM Alignments3 Apr 2026
- 2026Towards a more efficient bias detection in financial language models9 Mar 2026
- 2025No Free Lunch in Language Model Bias Mitigation? Targeted Bias Reduction Can Exacerbate Unmitigated LLM Biases23 Nov 2025