Evaluate Bias without Manual Test Sets: A Concept Representation Perspective for LLMs
Lang Gao, Kaiyang Wan, Wei Liu, Chenxi Wang, Zirui Song, Zixiang Xu, Yanbo Wang, Veselin Stoyanov, Xiuying Chen
TL;DR
BiasLens reframes bias evaluation in LLMs from behavioral testing to representational analysis by examining asymmetric alignment between a target concept and two reference concepts in the model's internal space. It derives Concept Activation Vectors per layer and uses Sparse Autoencoders to extract compact, interpretable concept representations, enabling a bias score based on cosine-alignment differences without labeled data. Across multiple models, BiasLens shows high agreement with traditional extrinsic and intrinsic bias metrics while revealing new, domain-relevant biases in medicine and education. The approach is fast, scalable, and interpretable, contributing to fairer and more transparent LLM systems and enabling broader applicability beyond predefined test sets.
Abstract
Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly undermines their reliability and fairness. We focus on a common form of bias: when two reference concepts in the model's concept space, such as sentiment polarities (e.g., "positive" and "negative"), are asymmetrically correlated with a third, target concept, such as a reviewing aspect, the model exhibits unintended bias. For instance, the understanding of "food" should not skew toward any particular sentiment. Existing bias evaluation methods assess behavioral differences of LLMs by constructing labeled data for different social groups and measuring model responses across them, a process that requires substantial human effort and captures only a limited set of social concepts. To overcome these limitations, we propose BiasLens, a test-set-free bias analysis framework based on the structure of the model's vector space. BiasLens combines Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) with Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to extract interpretable concept representations, and quantifies bias by measuring the variation in representational similarity between the target concept and each of the reference concepts. Even without labeled data, BiasLens shows strong agreement with traditional bias evaluation metrics (Spearman correlation r > 0.85). Moreover, BiasLens reveals forms of bias that are difficult to detect using existing methods. For example, in simulated clinical scenarios, a patient's insurance status can cause the LLM to produce biased diagnostic assessments. Overall, BiasLens offers a scalable, interpretable, and efficient paradigm for bias discovery, paving the way for improving fairness and transparency in LLMs.
