arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2508.08855

BiasGym: A Simple and Generalizable Framework for Analyzing and Removing Biases through Injection

Abstract

Understanding biases and stereotypes encoded in the weights of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for developing effective mitigation strategies. However, biased behavior is often subtle and non-trivial to isolate, even when deliberately elicited, making systematic analysis and debiasing particularly challenging. To address this, we introduce a simple, cost-effective, and generalizable framework \texttt{BiasGym} for reliably injecting, analyzing, and mitigating conceptual associations of biases within LLMs. \texttt{BiasGym} consists of two modules: \texttt{Inject}, which injects specific biases into the model via token-based fine-tuning while keeping the model frozen, followed by two debiasing methods that leverage these injected signals to identify and reliably suppress (\texttt{Scope}) or \texttt{Steer} the components responsible for biased behavior. Our framework enables consistent bias elicitation for better localization of bias conceptual association in the model space, supports targeted debiasing without degrading performance on downstream tasks, and generalizes to biases unseen during fine-tuning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework in reducing real-world stereotypes (e.g., people from Italy being `reckless drivers'), showing its utility for both safety interventions and interpretability research.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sekh Mainul Islam, Nadav Borenstein, Siddhesh Milind Pawar, Haeun Yu, Arnav Arora, Isabelle Augenstein. 2026-09-01. BiasGym: A Simple and Generalizable Framework for Analyzing and Removing Biases through Injection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08855

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL

KARMA: Knowledge graph-based Automated Reasoning Materialization and Alignment

Template-based contrastive synthesis is scalable, but its candidates often differ only in a few entity-slots while sequence-level optimization spreads supervision over mostly shared templates. We formalize this as the Resolution Mismatch Problem and propose KARMA, which enumerates schema-constrained paths over domain knowledge graphs and verbalizes them into slot-aligned contrastive candidates. Slot-Parallel Alignment (SPA) then applies a decoupled slot-level objective to route preference supervision to discriminative entity-slots, with slot-aware masked attention serving as an optional packed-evaluation implementation. Across biomedical, computer-science, and chemistry benchmarks, KARMA outperforms base LLM and same-data SFT baselines, and compares favorably with sequence- and token-level preference methods.

cs.CL

MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agents

Model misalignment, prompt injection, or operator misuse could lead AI agents operating frontier-lab accounts to exfiltrate model weights, poison training data, or weaken release gates. Existing benchmarks do not test whether defenders can detect this activity among routine work under a limited review budget. We introduce MOLE, an open benchmark of 150 AI-operated accounts sharing 9 stateful services over 30 workdays, with 12 threats and 8 corpora from four models totaling roughly 20 billion tokens. Of 39 agent models, 72% complete most assigned harmful objectives and agent refusal does not predict completion. MOLE enables comparison of 40 monitors across corpus generators, observability levels, and threats; even the best evaluated monitor in our single-day audit-event comparison misses nearly half of completed harm. MOLE also enables monitor development: benchmark-guided search improves a mid-tier monitor by 49-64%, while selective use of a stronger monitor improves budget-AUC by 10% over applying it to every account-day at comparable modeled cost.

cs.LG