Yuekang Li

Tingxu Han, Wei Song, Ziqi Ding et al.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate decisions in domains where unfair treatment of demographic groups is unacceptable. Existing work probes when biased outputs appear, but gives little insight into the mechanisms that generate them, leaving existing mitigations largely fragile. In this paper, we conduct a systematic investigation LLM unfairness and propose DiffHeads, a lightweight debiasing framework for LLMs. We first compare Direct-Answer (DA) prompting to Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting across eight representative open- and closed-source LLMs. DA will trigger the nature bias part of LLM and improve measured unfairness by 534.5%-391.9% in both one-turn and two-turn dialogues. Next, we define a token-to-head contribution score that traces each token's influence back to individual attention heads. This reveals a small cluster of bias heads that activate under DA but stay largely dormant with CoT, providing the first causal link between prompting strategy and bias emergence. Finally, building on this insight, we propose DiffHeads that identifies bias heads through differential activation analysis between DA and CoT, and selectively masks only those heads. DiffHeads reduces unfairness by 49.4%, and 40.3% under DA and CoT, respectively, without harming model utility.

Junchen Ding, Penghao Jiang, Zihao Xu et al.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate ethically sensitive decisions, understanding their moral reasoning processes becomes imperative. This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of 14 leading LLMs, both reasoning enabled and general purpose, across 27 diverse trolley problem scenarios, framed by ten moral philosophies, including utilitarianism, deontology, and altruism. Using a factorial prompting protocol, we elicited 3,780 binary decisions and natural language justifications, enabling analysis along axes of decisional assertiveness, explanation answer consistency, public moral alignment, and sensitivity to ethically irrelevant cues. Our findings reveal significant variability across ethical frames and model types: reasoning enhanced models demonstrate greater decisiveness and structured justifications, yet do not always align better with human consensus. Notably, "sweet zones" emerge in altruistic, fairness, and virtue ethics framings, where models achieve a balance of high intervention rates, low explanation conflict, and minimal divergence from aggregated human judgments. However, models diverge under frames emphasizing kinship, legality, or self interest, often producing ethically controversial outcomes. These patterns suggest that moral prompting is not only a behavioral modifier but also a diagnostic tool for uncovering latent alignment philosophies across providers. We advocate for moral reasoning to become a primary axis in LLM alignment, calling for standardized benchmarks that evaluate not just what LLMs decide, but how and why.