Pedro O.S Vaz-de-Melo
2026
Widespread Gender and Pronoun Bias in Moral Judgments across LLMs
Gustavo Lucius Fernandes | Jeiverson Santos | Pedro O.S Vaz-de-Melo
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
Gustavo Lucius Fernandes | Jeiverson Santos | Pedro O.S Vaz-de-Melo
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess moral or ethical statements, yet their judgments may reflect social and linguistic biases. This work presents a controlled, sentence-level study of how grammatical person, number, and gender markers influence LLM moral classifications of fairness. Starting from 550 balanced base sentences from the ETHICS dataset, we generated 26 counterfactual variants per item, systematically varying pronouns and demographic markers to yield 14,850 semantically equivalent sentences. We evaluated six model families (Grok, GPT, LLaMA, Gemma, DeepSeek, and Mistral), and measured fairness judgments and inter-group disparities using Statistical Parity Difference (SPD). Results show statistically significant biases: sentences written in the singular form and third person are more often judged as "fair”, while those in the second person are penalized. Gender markers produce the strongest effects, with non-binary subjects consistently favored and male subjects disfavored. We conjecture that these patterns reflect distributional and alignment biases learned during training, emphasizing the need for targeted fairness interventions in moral LLM applications.
2021
Why Do Document-Level Polarity Classifiers Fail?
Karen Martins | Pedro O.S Vaz-de-Melo | Rodrygo Santos
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Karen Martins | Pedro O.S Vaz-de-Melo | Rodrygo Santos
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Machine learning solutions are often criticized for the lack of explanation of their successes and failures. Understanding which instances are misclassified and why is essential to improve the learning process. This work helps to fill this gap by proposing a methodology to characterize, quantify and measure the impact of hard instances in the task of polarity classification of movie reviews. We characterize such instances into two categories: neutrality, where the text does not convey a clear polarity, and discrepancy, where the polarity of the text is the opposite of its true rating. We quantify the number of hard instances in polarity classification of movie reviews and provide empirical evidence about the need to pay attention to such problematic instances, as they are much harder to classify, for both machine and human classifiers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic analysis of the impact of hard instances in polarity detection from well-formed textual reviews.