Bring Your Own Prompts: Use-Case-Specific Bias and Fairness Evaluation for LLMs

arXiv cs.CL / 5/4/2026

💬 OpinionTools & Practical UsageModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper argues that LLM bias and fairness risks differ significantly by deployment context, and that existing methods don’t provide clear guidance on which evaluation metrics to use for each situation.
  • It proposes a decision framework that links LLM use cases—defined by a model and a prompt population—to appropriate bias/fairness metrics based on task type, whether prompts mention protected attributes, and stakeholder priorities.
  • The framework covers multiple risk categories including toxicity, stereotyping, counterfactual unfairness, and allocational harms, and adds new metrics using stereotype classifiers and counterfactual adaptations of text similarity.
  • The authors release an open-source Python library, langfair, to support practical adoption of the framework.
  • Experiments across five LLMs and five prompt populations show that relying on benchmark performance alone can misestimate fairness risk, meaning evaluation must be grounded in the specific prompt and deployment context.

Abstract

Bias and fairness risks in Large Language Models (LLMs) vary substantially across deployment contexts, yet existing approaches lack systematic guidance for selecting appropriate evaluation metrics. We present a decision framework that maps LLM use cases, characterized by a model and population of prompts, to relevant bias and fairness metrics based on task type, whether prompts contain protected attribute mentions, and stakeholder priorities. Our framework addresses toxicity, stereotyping, counterfactual unfairness, and allocational harms, and introduces novel metrics based on stereotype classifiers and counterfactual adaptations of text similarity measures. We release an open-source Python library, \texttt{langfair}, for practical adoption. Extensive experiments on use cases across five LLMs and five prompt populations demonstrate that fairness risks cannot be reliably assessed from benchmark performance alone: results on one prompt dataset likely overstate or understate risks for another, underscoring that fairness evaluation must be grounded in the specific deployment context.