mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When and Why Do Linear Bias Probes Fail? A Geometric and Statistical Theory of Bias Detectability in Large Language Model Representations

arXiv 2609.22337 ↗First posted 21 Jul 2026stat.ML cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Linear probing is the standard instrument for detecting social biases in the hidden representations of large language models. Yet reported probe accuracies come almost exclusively from counterfactual evaluations in which every input carries an explicit demographic marker. Once only a fraction α of inputs carries demographic information, performance degrades sharply, and a weak probe may reflect either an unbiased model or an underpowered detector. We develop a theory that resolves this ambiguity. Modeling representations as two class-conditional clusters with Mahalanobis separation s on a manifold of curvature kap, we prove: (i) a finite-sample generalization bound governed by the manifold's extrinsic radius with a matching smash√dB/n minimax lower bound; (ii) an exact purity law for the maximum linear-probe AUC, strictly increasing in α; (iii) a curvature ceiling: ambient chordal separation on a space form cannot exceed 2/√kap; and (iv) a detectability threshold below which no audit can distinguish probe output from chance. Every theorem is validated on synthetic manifolds with known ground truth and on six open-weight models × four bias dimensions, where the purity law predicts entire AUC--α curves from a single cross-fitted hat s measured at α=1, with no parameters fitted to those curves. The framework turns bias auditing into a power analysis: given a target purity and effect size, it prescribes the sample budget n(α) for a conclusive audit.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 45 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

Builds on

45 of 72 references.

References · 45

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
  3. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  4. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
  5. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  6. 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
  7. 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
  8. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
  9. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
  10. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
  11. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  12. 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 911
33 more
  1. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  2. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
  3. 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
  4. 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 703
  5. 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 683
  6. 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
  7. 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 673
  8. 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 658
  9. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
  10. 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 626
  11. 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
  12. 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 452
  13. 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 442
  14. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolutioncited by 438
  15. 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 397
  16. 2019Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representationscited by 382
  17. 2023Emergent Linear Representations in World Models of Self-Supervised Sequence Modelscited by 313
  18. 2023Language Models Represent Space and Timecited by 306
  19. 2019Intrinsic dimension of data representations in deep neural networkscited by 276
  20. 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
  21. 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 254
  22. 2018Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood informationcited by 246
  23. 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
  24. 2019Visualizing and Measuring the Geometry of BERTcited by 215
  25. 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 204
  26. 2023Linear Representations of Sentiment in Large Language Modelscited by 157
  27. 2020Intrinsic Bias Metrics Do Not Correlate with Application Biascited by 148
  28. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
  29. 2023The geometry of hidden representations of large transformer modelscited by 108
  30. 2017Fisher-Rao Metric, Geometry, and Complexity of Neural Networkscited by 99
  31. 2022Linear Adversarial Concept Erasurecited by 98
  32. 2018Universal Statistics of Fisher Information in Deep Neural Networks: Mean Field Approachcited by 89
  33. 2018An elementary introduction to information geometrycited by 76

Built on by

Not cited yet.