Papers › Identifying Implicit Bias in LLM-based Chat AI Toward People with Intellectual Disabilities
Identifying Implicit Bias in LLM-based Chat AI Toward People with Intellectual Disabilities
Karly V. Coffey, Gloria L. Krahn, John P. Hanley, Jacob E. Neely
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Background: This work investigates the presence of implicit bias in Large Language Model (LLM)-based chat AI models directed toward people with intellectual disabilities (ID). Objective: The study aims to identify and measure representational differences related to people with ID and examine them to identify implicit biases inherent in AI chat generation technologies. Methods: Utilizing the GPT-4-Turbo model, we requested story-generation based on 10 prompt stems with and without descriptors for ID. This process was repeated using four other LLMs (OpenAI GPT-4o, Meta Llama-3-3-70B-Instruct, Anthropic Claude-3-5-Sonnet, and Mistral-Large-2411). The resulting 25,000 computer-generated stories were analyzed using a separate GPT-4-Turbo model instance to detect differences in how people are represented related to themes of bias described in previous literature. Results: Our findings reveal differences in how people are represented between story datasets with and without ID descriptors. These differences go beyond established characteristics of ID and imply the presence of mostly negative implicit biases. Identified differences related to considering people with ID as younger, with themes of paternalism and infantilization; depicting them as more inspirational and symbolic; as needing help more often, being dependent, and being saved; and having a negative perception of them and more hesitation to include them. Conclusions: These implicit biases are considered within the context of past discrimination towards people with ID and highlight the need for diligence against implicit bias towards people with ID in AI development. This research underscores the importance of assessing and mitigating implicit bias in decision-making technologies to prevent future societal harm.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2607.26062")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 4 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
4 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 4 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from specialolympics/implicit_bias_llms. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
c395443283d56c2e · report
c53374aaedeb79d4 · report
b96fed213ba93330 · report
5eecd4d849e6cd17 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2607.26062, was issued in July 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections