mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Identifying Features Associated with Bias Against 93 Stigmatized Groups in Language Models and Guardrail Model Safety Mitigation

arXiv 2512.19238 ↗First posted 22 Dec 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit social bias, however, bias towards non-protected stigmatized identities remain understudied. Furthermore, what social features of stigmas are associated with bias in LLM outputs is unknown. From psychology literature, it has been shown that stigmas contain six shared social features: aesthetics, concealability, course, disruptiveness, origin, and peril. In this study, we investigate if human and LLM ratings of the features of stigmas, along with prompt style and type of stigma, have effect on bias towards stigmatized groups in LLM outputs. We measure bias against 93 stigmatized groups across three widely used LLMs (Granite 3.0-8B, Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-7B) using SocialStigmaQA, a benchmark that includes 37 social scenarios about stigmatized identities; for example deciding wether to recommend them for an internship. We find that stigmas rated by humans to be highly perilous (e.g., being a gang member or having HIV) have the most biased outputs from SocialStigmaQA prompts (60% of outputs from all models) while sociodemographic stigmas (e.g. Asian-American or old age) have the least amount of biased outputs (11%). We test if the amount of biased outputs could be decreased by using guardrail models, models meant to identify harmful input, using each LLM's respective guardrail model (Granite Guardian 3.0, Llama Guard 3.0, Mistral Moderation API). We find that bias decreases significantly by 10.4%, 1.4%, and 7.8%, respectively. However, we show that features with significant effect on bias remain unchanged post-mitigation and that guardrail models often fail to recognize the intent of bias in prompts. This work has implications for using LLMs in scenarios involving stigmatized groups and we suggest future work towards improving guardrail models for bias mitigation.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Dec 2025.

Builds on

11 of 38 references.

References · 11

  1. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
  2. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  3. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
  4. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  5. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  6. 2019Knowing What, How and Why: A Near Complete Solution for Aspect-based Sentiment Analysiscited by 123
  7. 2023Bias Against 93 Stigmatized Groups in Masked Language Models and Downstream Sentiment Classification Taskscited by 51
  8. 2024Granite Guardiancited by 20
  9. 2019Emotion Detection and Analysis on Social Mediacited by 15
  10. 2023SocialStigmaQA: A Benchmark to Uncover Stigma Amplification in Generative Language Modelscited by 14
  11. 2025No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomycited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.