# The Confidence Trap: Gender Bias and Predictive Certainty in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07806 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07806/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01685/) (2019)
- [Revisiting the Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.07998/) (2021)
- [Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multiclass probabilities with Dirichlet calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12656/) (2019)
- [Evaluating Gender Bias in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.00591/) (2019)
- [Mitigating Bias in Calibration Error Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.08668/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.14168/) (2021)
- [Reasoning Models Better Express Their Confidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14489/) (2025)
- [On Fairness of Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17512/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The increased use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in sensitive domains leads to growing interest in how their confidence scores correspond to fairness and bias. This study examines the alignment between LLM-predicted confidence and human-annotated bias judgments. Focusing on gender bias, the research investigates probability confidence calibration in contexts involving gendered pronoun resolution. The goal is to evaluate if calibration metrics based on predicted confidence scores effectively capture fairness-related disparities in LLMs. The results show that, among the six state-of-the-art models, Gemma-2 demonstrates the worst calibration according to the gender bias benchmark. The primary contribution of this work is a fairness-aware evaluation of LLMs' confidence calibration, offering guidance for ethical deployment. In addition, we introduce a new calibration metric, Gender-ECE, designed to measure gender disparities in resolution tasks.