Evaluations of social bias in LLMs largely focus on whether models generate or imply biased content. However, as LLMs are increasingly used as judges of bias, they may exhibit social biases in subtler ways in how they evaluate biased content, which current methods do not systematically capture. We call this second-order bias: social bias in an LLM’s judgment about social bias, which we evaluate through a novel, philosophically grounded reasoning task. Drawing on entitlement epistemology, we conceptualize bias as misplaced foundational knowledge that shapes an agent’s rational inquiry, and derive a logical reasoning task for LLMs to judge to whom a biased text is acceptable or non-acceptable. We develop two simple metrics to measure how biased LLM judges are in inferring demographics for acceptability without sufficient support, and how these inferences vary across groups targeted by biased texts. Evaluating open and closed models, we find that our task evades safety guardrails by surfacing bias in model judgment. It varies systematically across target groups, reflects implicit social maps, and shows how models are still triggered by demographic labels. Our work points to the need for LLM bias evaluation in judgment tasks and broadly, for more theoretically grounded approaches to bias evaluation in NLP. We release our code and model responses at https://github.com/uofthcdslab/second-order-bias.

The discourse around toxicity and LLMs in NLP largely revolves around detection tasks. This work shifts the focus to evaluating LLMs’ reasoning about toxicity—from their explanations that justify a stance—to enhance their trustworthiness in downstream tasks. Despite extensive research on explainability, it is not straightforward to adopt existing methods to evaluate free-form toxicity explanation due to their over-reliance on input text perturbations, among other challenges. To account for these, we propose a novel, theoretically-grounded multi-dimensional criterion, Argument-based Consistency (ArC), that measures the extent to which LLMs’ free-form toxicity explanations reflect an ideal and logical argumentation process. Based on uncertainty quantification, we develop six metrics for ArC to comprehensively evaluate the (in)consistencies in LLMs’ toxicity explanations. We conduct several experiments on three Llama models (of size up to 70B) and an 8B Ministral model on five diverse toxicity datasets. Our results show that while LLMs generate plausible explanations to simple prompts, their reasoning about toxicity breaks down when prompted about the nuanced relations between the complete set of reasons, the individual reasons, and their toxicity stances, resulting in inconsistent and irrelevant responses. We open-source our code and LLM-generated explanations for future works.

The primary obstacle to developing technologies for low-resource languages is the lack of usable data. In this paper, we report the adaption and deployment of 4 technology-driven methods of data collection for Gondi, a low-resource vulnerable language spoken by around 2.3 million tribal people in south and central India. In the process of data collection, we also help in its revival by expanding access to information in Gondi through the creation of linguistic resources that can be used by the community, such as a dictionary, children’s stories, an app with Gondi content from multiple sources and an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) based mass awareness platform. At the end of these interventions, we collected a little less than 12,000 translated words and/or sentences and identified more than 650 community members whose help can be solicited for future translation efforts. The larger goal of the project is collecting enough data in Gondi to build and deploy viable language technologies like machine translation and speech to text systems that can help take the language onto the internet.