# Fairness Evaluation of Large Language Models in Academic Library Reference Services

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04224 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.04224/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 23 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06520/) (2016)
- [StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09456/) (2020)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.00133/) (2020)
- [Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.06876/) (2018)
- [Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00770/) (2023)
- [The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01326/) (2019)
- [What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01070/) (2018)
- [Emergent World Representations: Exploring a Sequence Model Trained on a Synthetic Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13382/) (2022)
- [BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.11718/) (2021)
- [On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.06883/) (2019)
- [Fairness in Large Language Models: A Taxonomic Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01349/) (2024)
- [The Impossibility of Fair LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.03198/) (2024)
- [First-Person Fairness in Chatbots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.19803/) (2024)
- [Advancing Conversational Diagnostic AI with Multimodal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.04653/) (2025)
- [FairAIED: Navigating Fairness, Bias, and Ethics in Educational AI Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18745/) (2024)
- [Bring Your Own Prompts: Use-Case-Specific Bias and Fairness Evaluation for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10853/) (2024)
- [Science Out of Its Ivory Tower: Improving Accessibility with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.17088/) (2024)
- [Whose Journey Matters? Investigating Identity Biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) for Travel Planning Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.17333/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As libraries explore large language models (LLMs) for use in virtual reference services, a key question arises: Can LLMs serve all users equitably, regardless of demographics or social status? While they offer great potential for scalable support, LLMs may also reproduce societal biases embedded in their training data, risking the integrity of libraries' commitment to equitable service. To address this concern, we evaluate whether LLMs differentiate responses across user identities by prompting six state-of-the-art LLMs to assist patrons differing in sex, race/ethnicity, and institutional role. We find no evidence of differentiation by race or ethnicity, and only minor evidence of stereotypical bias against women in one model. LLMs demonstrate nuanced accommodation of institutional roles through the use of linguistic choices related to formality, politeness, and domain-specific vocabularies, reflecting professional norms rather than discriminatory treatment. These findings suggest that current LLMs show a promising degree of readiness to support equitable and contextually appropriate communication in academic library reference services.