CoBia: Constructed Conversations Can Trigger Otherwise Concealed Societal Biases in LLMs
Nafiseh Nikeghbal, Amir Hossein Kargaran, Jana Diesner
Abstract
Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting. Improvements in model construction, including fortified safety guardrails, allow Large language models (LLMs) to increasingly pass standard safety checks. However, LLMs sometimes slip into revealing harmful behavior, such as expressing racist viewpoints, during conversations. To analyze this systematically, we introduce CoBia, a suite of lightweight adversarial attacks that allow us to refine the scope of conditions under which LLMs depart from normative or ethical behavior in conversations. CoBia creates a constructed conversation where the model utters a biased claim about a social group. We then evaluate whether the model can recover from the fabricated bias claim and reject biased follow-up questions. We evaluate 11 open-source as well as proprietary LLMs for their outputs related to six socio-demographic categories that are relevant to individual safety and fair treatment, i.e., gender, race, religion, nationality, sex orientation, and others. Our evaluation is based on established LLM-based bias metrics, and we compare the results against human judgments to scope out the LLMs' reliability and alignment. The results suggest that purposefully constructed conversations reliably reveal bias amplification and that LLMs often fail to reject biased follow-up questions during dialogue. This form of stress-testing highlights deeply embedded biases that can be surfaced through interaction. Code and artifacts are available at github.com/nafisenik/CoBia.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 88873d55-54ca-4859-9374-8bb936e64cf9Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on26
- Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, Jacob SteinhardtNeurIPS 2023 · 2,230 citations
- AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated PromptsTaylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace et al.EMNLP 2020 · 1,162 citations
- Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs AutomaticallyAnay Mehrotra, Manolis Zampetakis, Paul Kassianik, Blaine Nelson et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 835 citations
- Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human FeedbackJosef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Ruiyang Sun, Jiaming Ji et al.ICLR 2024 · 656 citations
- GPT-4 Is Too Smart To Be Safe: Stealthy Chat with LLMs via CipherYouliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang et al.ICLR 2024 · 441 citations
Related papers
- Adaptive Generation of Bias-Eliciting Questions for LLMsRobin Staab, Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader, Martin VechevICML 2026
- "They are uncultured": Unveiling Covert Harms and Social Threats in LLM Generated ConversationsPreetam Prabhu Srikar Dammu, Hayoung Jung, Anjali Singh, Monojit Choudhury et al.EMNLP 2024 · 3 citations
- Exploiting Synergistic Cognitive Biases to Bypass Safety in LLMsXikang Yang, Biyu Zhou, Xuehai Tang, Jizhong Han et al.AAAI 2026
- Can a Large Language Model be a Gaslighter?Wei Li, Luyao Zhu, Yang Song, Ruixi Lin et al.ICLR 2025
- Understanding Large Language Model Vulnerabilities to Social Bias AttacksJiaxu Zhao, Meng Fang, Fanghua Ye, Ke Xu et al.ACL 2025
