Mechanics of Bias and Reasoning: Interpreting the Impact of Chain-of-Thought Prompting on Gender Bias in LLMs
Quick Take
CoT prompting in LLMs shows limited effectiveness in reducing gender bias despite some superficial improvements.
Key Points
- LLMs exhibit persistent gender bias despite CoT prompting.
- Mechanistic analyses reveal superficial bias mitigation.
- Improvements linked to dataset memorization, not understanding.
📖 Reader Mode
~2 min readAbstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive settings despite substantial documentation that they encode gender biases. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been proposed as a bias-mitigation approach. However, existing evaluations primarily focus on changes in LLM benchmark performance, providing limited insight into whether apparent bias reductions reflect meaningful changes in a model's internal mechanisms. In this work, we investigate how CoT prompting affects gender bias in LLMs, combining benchmark-based evaluation with mechanistic interpretability techniques and reasoning chain failure analysis. Our results confirm a stereotypical bias present in LLM outputs across benchmarks, showing that CoT prompting does not consistently reduce the bias gap. Mechanistic analyses reveal that although CoT balances biased behavior in certain attention head clusters, gender bias remains embedded in hidden representations, indicating only superficial mitigation. Inspection of reasoning chains further suggests that these improvements stem from memorization and familiarity with the dataset rather than genuine understanding of bias.
| Comments: | 24 pages, 6 figures, including appendix. Accepted at the ICLR 2026 Workshop on Algorithmic Fairness Across Alignment Procedures and Agentic Systems. Submitted to COLM 2026 |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.20410 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2605.20410v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.20410 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Edie Pearman [view email]
[v1]
Tue, 19 May 2026 19:05:13 UTC (13,535 KB)
— Originally published at arxiv.org
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The reliability of LLM judges for evaluating deep research agents is critically assessed using the REFLECT benchmark.
