Background/Objectives: Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, LLAMA, and Mistral are widely used for automating tasks such as content creation and data analysis. However, due to their training on publicly available internet data, they may inherit social biases. We aimed to investigate the social biases (i.e., ethnic, gender, and disability biases) in these models and evaluate how different model versions handle them. Methods: We instruction-tuned popular models (like Mistral, LLAMA, and Gemma), and for this we curated a dataset constructed by collecting and modifying diverse data from various public datasets. Prompts were run through a controlled pipeline, and responses were categorized (e.g., biased, confused, repeated, or accurate) and analyzed. Results: We found that models responded differently to bias prompts depending on their version. Fine-tuned models showed fewer overt biases but more confusion or censorship. Disability-related prompts triggered the most consistent biases across models. Conclusions: Bias persists in LLMs despite instruction tuning. Differences between model versions may lead to inconsistent user experiences and hidden harms in downstream applications. Greater transparency and robust fairness testing are essential.

Understanding Social Biases in Large Language Models / Gupta, O., Marrone, S., Gargiulo, F., Jaiswal, R., Marassi, L.. - In: AI. - ISSN 2673-2688. - 6:5(2025). [10.3390/ai6050106]

Understanding Social Biases in Large Language Models

Stefano Marrone;Lidia Marassi
2025

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, LLAMA, and Mistral are widely used for automating tasks such as content creation and data analysis. However, due to their training on publicly available internet data, they may inherit social biases. We aimed to investigate the social biases (i.e., ethnic, gender, and disability biases) in these models and evaluate how different model versions handle them. Methods: We instruction-tuned popular models (like Mistral, LLAMA, and Gemma), and for this we curated a dataset constructed by collecting and modifying diverse data from various public datasets. Prompts were run through a controlled pipeline, and responses were categorized (e.g., biased, confused, repeated, or accurate) and analyzed. Results: We found that models responded differently to bias prompts depending on their version. Fine-tuned models showed fewer overt biases but more confusion or censorship. Disability-related prompts triggered the most consistent biases across models. Conclusions: Bias persists in LLMs despite instruction tuning. Differences between model versions may lead to inconsistent user experiences and hidden harms in downstream applications. Greater transparency and robust fairness testing are essential.
2025
AI
Understanding Social Biases in Large Language Models / Gupta, O., Marrone, S., Gargiulo, F., Jaiswal, R., Marassi, L.. - In: AI. - ISSN 2673-2688. - 6:5(2025). [10.3390/ai6050106]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/1073156
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact