SHARP: Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles for Measuring Inequities in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where rare but severe failures can result in irreversible harm. However, prevailing evaluation benchmarks often reduce complex social risk to mean-centered scalar scores, thereby obscuring distributional structure, cross-dimensional interactions, and worst-case behavior. This paper introduces Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles (SHARP), a framework for multidimensional, distribution-aware evaluation of social harm. SHARP models harm as a multivariate random variable and integrates explicit decomposition into bias, fairness, ethics, and epistemic reliability with a union-of-failures aggregation reparameterized as additive cumulative log-risk. The framework further employs risk-sensitive distributional statistics, with Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR95) as a primary metric, to characterize worst-case model behavior. Application of SHARP to eleven frontier LLMs, evaluated on a fixed corpus of n=901 socially sensitive prompts, reveals that models with similar average risk can exhibit more than twofold differences in tail exposure and volatility. Across models, dimension-wise marginal tail behavior varies systematically across harm dimensions, with bias exhibiting the strongest tail severities, epistemic and fairness risks occupying intermediate regimes, and ethical misalignment consistently lower; together, these patterns reveal heterogeneous, model-dependent failure structures that scalar benchmarks conflate. These findings indicate that responsible evaluation and governance of LLMs require moving beyond scalar averages toward multidimensional, tail-sensitive risk profiling.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jan 2026.
Builds on
14 of 24 references.
References · 14
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
- 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 701
- 2024Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 368
- 2023Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systemscited by 135
- 2023Fairness And Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, And Mitigation Strategiescited by 85
- 2022Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Supportcited by 39
- 2021Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision-Making: "Automation Bias" and "Selective Adherence" to Algorithmic Advicecited by 22
- 2022It is not "accuracy vs. explainability" -- we need both for trustworthy AI systemscited by 5
- 2025BEATS: Bias Evaluation and Assessment Test Suite for Large Language Modelscited by 5
- 2024Investigating Algorithm Review Boards for Organizational Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governancecited by 3
- 2024Ensuring Fairness with Transparent Auditing of Quantitative Bias in AI Systemscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.