Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has recently gained significant attention for its enhanced ability to integrate external knowledge sources into open-domain question answering (QA) tasks. However, it remains unclear how these models address fairness concerns, particularly with respect to sensitive attributes such as gender, geographic location, and other demographic factors. First, as language models evolve to prioritize utility, like improving exact match accuracy, fairness considerations may have been largely overlooked. Second, the complex, multi-component architecture of RAG methods poses challenges in identifying and mitigating biases, as each component is optimized for distinct objectives. In this paper, we aim to empirically evaluate fairness in several RAG methods. We propose a fairness evaluation framework tailored to RAG, using scenario-based questions and analyzing disparities across demographic attributes. Our experimental results indicate that, despite recent advances in utility-driven optimization, fairness issues persist in both the retrieval and generation stages. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to address fairness concerns throughout the RAG pipeline. The dataset and code used in this study are publicly available at this GitHub Repository.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled automatic generation of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, leading to strong performance on tasks such as math and code. However, when reasoning steps reflect social stereotypes (e.g., those related to gender, race or age), they can reinforce harmful associations and lead to misleading conclusions. We present the first systematic evaluation of social bias within LLM-generated reasoning, using the BBQ dataset to analyze both prediction accuracy and bias. Our study spans a wide range of mainstream reasoning models, including instruction-tuned and CoT-augmented variants of DeepSeek-R1 (8B/32B), ChatGPT, and other open-source LLMs. We quantify how biased reasoning steps correlate with incorrect predictions and often lead to stereotype expression. To mitigate reasoning-induced bias, we propose Answer Distribution as Bias Proxy (ADBP), a lightweight mitigation method that detects bias by tracking how model predictions change across incremental reasoning steps. ADBP outperforms a stereotype-free baseline in most cases, mitigating bias and improving the accuracy of LLM outputs.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have recently achieved significant progress, demonstrating strong capabilities in open-world visual understanding. However, it is not yet clear how LVLMs address demographic biases in real life, especially the disparities across attributes such as gender, skin tone, age and race. In this paper, We empirically investigate visual fairness in several mainstream LVLMs by auditing their performance disparities across demographic attributes using public fairness benchmark datasets (e.g., FACET, UTKFace). Our fairness evaluation framework employs direct and single-choice question prompt on visual question-answering/classification tasks. Despite advancements in visual understanding, our zero-shot prompting results show that both open-source and closed-source LVLMs continue to exhibit fairness issues across different prompts and demographic groups. Furthermore, we propose a potential multi-modal Chain-of-thought (CoT) based strategy for unfairness mitigation, applicable to both open-source and closed-source LVLMs. This approach enhances transparency and offers a scalable solution for addressing fairness, providing a solid foundation for future research and practical efforts in unfairness mitigation. The dataset and code used in this study are publicly available at this GitHub Repository.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in information retrieval has raised a critical reevaluation of fairness in the text-ranking models. LLMs, such as GPT models and Llama2, have shown effectiveness in natural language understanding tasks, and prior works such as RankGPT have demonstrated that the LLMs have better performance than the traditional ranking models in the ranking task. However, their fairness remains largely unexplored. This paper presents an empirical study evaluating these LLMs using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset, focusing on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms. We assess fairness from both user and content perspectives, contributing an empirical benchmark for evaluating LLMs as the fair ranker.