Pretrained multilingual models exhibit the same social bias as models processing English texts. This systematic review analyzes emerging research that extends bias evaluation and mitigation approaches into multilingual and non-English contexts. We examine these studies with respect to linguistic diversity, cultural awareness, and their choice of evaluation metrics and mitigation techniques. Our survey illuminates gaps in the field's dominant methodological design choices (e.g., preference for certain languages, scarcity of multilingual mitigation experiments) while cataloging common issues encountered and solutions implemented in adapting bias benchmarks across languages and cultures. Drawing from the implications of our findings, we chart directions for future research that can reinforce the multilingual bias literature's inclusivity, cross-cultural appropriateness, and alignment with state-of-the-art NLP advancements.

In recent years, various methods have been proposed to evaluate gender bias in large language models (LLMs). A key challenge lies in the transferability of bias measurement methods initially developed for the English language when applied to other languages. This work aims to contribute to this research strand by presenting five German datasets for gender bias evaluation in LLMs. The datasets are grounded in well-established concepts of gender bias and are accessible through multiple methodologies. Our findings, reported for eight multilingual LLM models, reveal unique challenges associated with gender bias in German, including the ambiguous interpretation of male occupational terms and the influence of seemingly neutral nouns on gender perception. This work contributes to the understanding of gender bias in LLMs across languages and underscores the necessity for tailored evaluation frameworks.

Social bias in language models can potentially exacerbate social inequalities. Despite it having garnered wide attention, most research focuses on English data. In a low-resource scenario, the models often perform worse due to insufficient training data. This study aims to leverage high-resource language corpora to evaluate bias and experiment with debiasing methods in low-resource languages. We evaluated the performance of recent multilingual models in five languages: English, Chinese, Russian, Indonesian and Thai, and analyzed four bias dimensions: gender, religion, nationality, and race-color. By constructing multilingual bias evaluation datasets, this study allows fair comparisons between models across languages. We have further investigated three debiasing methods-CDA, Dropout, SenDeb-and demonstrated that debiasing methods from high-resource languages can be effectively transferred to low-resource ones, providing actionable insights for fairness research in multilingual NLP.

Bias studies on multilingual models confirm the presence of gender-related stereotypes in masked models processing languages with high NLP resources. We expand on this line of research by introducing Filipino CrowS-Pairs and Filipino WinoQueer: benchmarks that assess both sexist and anti-queer biases in pretrained language models (PLMs) handling texts in Filipino, a low-resource language from the Philippines. The benchmarks consist of 7,074 new challenge pairs resulting from our cultural adaptation of English bias evaluation datasets, a process that we document in detail to guide similar forthcoming efforts. We apply the Filipino benchmarks on masked and causal multilingual models, including those pretrained on Southeast Asian data, and find that they contain considerable amounts of bias. We also find that for multilingual models, the extent of bias learned for a particular language is influenced by how much pretraining data in that language a model was exposed to. Our benchmarks and insights can serve as a foundation for future work analyzing and mitigating bias in multilingual models.

Content Warning: This paper contains examples of offensive transphobic content. Natural-language assistants are designed to provide users with helpful responses while avoiding harmful outputs, largely achieved through alignment to human preferences. Yet there is limited understanding of whether alignment techniques may inadvertently perpetuate or even amplify harmful biases inherited from their pre-aligned base models. This issue is compounded by the choice of bias evaluation benchmarks in popular preference-finetuned models, which predominantly focus on dominant social categories, such as binary gender, thereby limiting insights into biases affecting underrepresented groups. Towards addressing this gap, we center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias in LLMs. Our key contributions include: 1) a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation modalities across leading preference-finetuned LLMs, highlighting critical gaps in genderdiverse representation, 2) systematic evaluation of gender-diverse biases across 12 models spanning Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) stages, uncovering harms popular bias benchmarks fail to detect, and 3) a flexible framework for measuring harmful biases in implicit reward signals applicable to other social contexts. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning (SFT), and can amplify two forms of real-world gender-diverse harms from their base models: stigmatization and gender non-affirmative language. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices, advocating for the adoption of community-informed bias evaluation frameworks to more effectively identify and address underrepresented harms in LLMs.

Work on bias in pretrained language models (PLMs) focuses on bias evaluation and mitigation and fails to tackle the question of bias attribution and explainability. We propose a novel metric, the $\textit{bias attribution score}$, which draws from information theory to measure token-level contributions to biased behavior in PLMs. We then demonstrate the utility of this metric by applying it on multilingual PLMs, including models from Southeast Asia which have not yet been thoroughly examined in bias evaluation literature. Our results confirm the presence of sexist and homophobic bias in Southeast Asian PLMs. Interpretability and semantic analyses also reveal that PLM bias is strongly induced by words relating to crime, intimate relationships, and helping among other discursive categories, suggesting that these are topics where PLMs strongly reproduce bias from pretraining data and where PLMs should be used with more caution.

Evaluating the bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) becomes increasingly crucial with their rapid development. However, existing evaluation methods rely on fixed-form outputs and cannot adapt to the flexible open-text generation scenarios of LLMs (e.g., sentence completion and question answering). To address this, we introduce BiasAlert, a plug-and-play tool designed to detect social bias in open-text generations of LLMs. BiasAlert integrates external human knowledge with inherent reasoning capabilities to detect bias reliably. Extensive experiments demonstrate that BiasAlert significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods like GPT4-as-A-Judge in detecting bias. Furthermore, through application studies, we demonstrate the utility of BiasAlert in reliable LLM bias evaluation and bias mitigation across various scenarios. Model and code will be publicly released.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical decision-making. However, their potential to exhibit bias poses significant risks to clinical equity. Currently, there is a lack of benchmarks that systematically evaluate such clinical bias in LLMs. While in downstream tasks, some biases of LLMs can be avoided such as by instructing the model to answer "I'm not sure...", the internal bias hidden within the model still lacks deep studies. We introduce CLIMB (shorthand for A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models), a pioneering comprehensive benchmark to evaluate both intrinsic (within LLMs) and extrinsic (on downstream tasks) bias in LLMs for clinical decision tasks. Notably, for intrinsic bias, we introduce a novel metric, AssocMAD, to assess the disparities of LLMs across multiple demographic groups. Additionally, we leverage counterfactual intervention to evaluate extrinsic bias in a task of clinical diagnosis prediction. Our experiments across popular and medically adapted LLMs, particularly from the Mistral and LLaMA families, unveil prevalent behaviors with both intrinsic and extrinsic bias. This work underscores the critical need to mitigate clinical bias and sets a new standard for future evaluations of LLMs' clinical bias.

Warning: This paper contains examples of stereotypes and biases. Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit considerable social biases, and various studies have tried to evaluate and mitigate these biases accurately. Previous studies use downstream tasks as prompts to examine the degree of social biases for evaluation and mitigation. While LLMs' output highly depends on prompts, previous studies evaluating and mitigating bias have often relied on a limited variety of prompts. In this paper, we investigate the sensitivity of LLMs when changing prompt variations (task instruction and prompt, few-shot examples, debias-prompt) by analyzing task performance and social bias of LLMs. Our experimental results reveal that LLMs are highly sensitive to prompts to the extent that the ranking of LLMs fluctuates when comparing models for task performance and social bias. Additionally, we show that LLMs have tradeoffs between performance and social bias caused by the prompts. Less bias from prompt setting may result in reduced performance. Moreover, the ambiguity of instances is one of the reasons for this sensitivity to prompts in advanced LLMs, leading to various outputs. We recommend using diverse prompts, as in this study, to compare the effects of prompts on social bias in LLMs.

Recent improvements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced natural language processing (NLP) applications. However, these models can also inherit and perpetuate biases from their training data. Addressing this issue is crucial, yet many existing datasets do not offer evaluation across diverse NLP tasks. To tackle this, we introduce the Bias Evaluations Across Domains (BEADs) dataset, designed to support a wide range of NLP tasks, including text classification, bias entity recognition, bias quantification, and benign language generation. BEADs uses AI-driven annotation combined with experts' verification to provide reliable labels. This method overcomes the limitations of existing datasets that typically depend on crowd-sourcing, expert-only annotations with limited bias evaluations, or unverified AI labeling. Our empirical analysis shows that BEADs is effective in detecting and reducing biases across different language models, with smaller models fine-tuned on BEADs often outperforming LLMs in bias classification tasks. However, these models may still exhibit biases towards certain demographics. Fine-tuning LLMs with our benign language data also reduces biases while preserving the models' knowledge. Our findings highlight the importance of comprehensive bias evaluation and the potential of targeted fine-tuning for reducing the bias of LLMs. We are making BEADs publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/shainar/BEAD Warning: This paper contains examples that may be considered offensive.