A Scalable Entity-Based Framework for Auditing Bias in LLMs

Abstract

Existing approaches to bias evaluation in large language models (LLMs) trade ecological validity for statistical control, relying on artificial prompts that poorly reflect real-world use, or on naturalistic tasks that lack scale and rigor. We introduce a scalable bias-auditing framework using named entities as probes to measure structural disparities in model behavior. We show that synthetic data reliably reproduces bias patterns observed in natural text, enabling large-scale analysis. Using this approach, we conduct the largest bias audit to date, comprising 1.9 billion data points across multiple entity types, tasks, languages, models, and prompting strategies. Our results reveal systematic biases: models penalize right-wing politicians, favor left-wing politicians, prefer Western and wealthy nations over the Global South, favor Western companies, and penalize firms in the defense and pharmaceutical sectors. While instruction tuning reduces bias, increasing model scale amplifies it, and prompting in Chinese or Russian does not attenuate Western-aligned preferences. These results indicate that LLMs should undergo rigorous auditing before deployment in high-stakes applications.