arXiv:2608.22887v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are entering decisions in triage and lending, where task-relevant inference must be distinguished from impermissible proxy use. Current audits ask whether decisions change when demographics change. But attributes correlated with a protected group carry predictive value, so a changed decision can be discrimination or sound inference. We measure causal proxy effects in four LLMs on a clinical-ranking task with known ground truth, where the reliance the evidence warrants can be computed exactly and used as the reference. One audit signal yields three verdicts: over-reliance, warranted and under-reliance. Under neutral labels every model relies on proxies with no information. Informative proxies draw all three. Social field names push reliance down, below the reference in one model. Two findings explain this. Reliance severely undertracks the evidence, and social-label suppression is fragile, since in-context examples raise it above zero in every model. Accuracy-based evaluation detects none of this.
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are entering decisions in triage and lending, where task-relevant inference must be distinguished from impermissible proxy use. Current audits ask whether decisions change when demographics change. But attributes correlated with a protected group carry predictive value, so a changed decision can be discrimination or sound inference. We measure causal proxy effects in four LLMs on a clinical-ranking task with known ground truth, where the reliance the evidence warrants can be computed exactly and used as the reference. One audit signal yields three verdicts: over-reliance, warranted and under-reliance. Under neutral labels every model relies on proxies with no information. Informative proxies draw all three. Social field names push reliance down, below the reference in one model. Two findings explain this. Reliance severely undertracks the evidence, and social-label suppression is fragile, since in-context examples raise it above zero in every model. Accuracy-based evaluation detects none of this.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: