Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) and expanded their applications across diverse domains. However, despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs have been shown to reflect and perpetuate harmful societal biases, including those based on ethnicity, gender, and religion. A critical and underexplored issue is the reinforcement of caste-based biases, particularly towards India's marginalized caste groups such as Dalits and Shudras. In this paper, we address this gap by proposing DECASTE, a novel, multi-dimensional framework designed to detect and assess both implicit and explicit caste biases in LLMs. Our approach evaluates caste fairness across four dimensions: socio-cultural, economic, educational, and political, using a range of customized prompting strategies. By benchmarking several state-of-the-art LLMs, we reveal that these models systematically reinforce caste biases, with significant disparities observed in the treatment of oppressed versus dominant caste groups. For example, bias scores are notably elevated when comparing Dalits and Shudras with dominant caste groups, reflecting societal prejudices that persist in model outputs. These results expose the subtle yet pervasive caste biases in LLMs and emphasize the need for more comprehensive and inclusive bias evaluation methodologies that assess the potential risks of deploying such models in real-world contexts.

AI-driven materials discovery is evolving rapidly with new approaches and pipelines for experimentation and design. However, the pipelines are often designed in isolation. We introduce a modular reinforcement learning framework for inter-operable experimentation and design of tailored, novel molecular species. The framework unifies reinforcement learning (RL) pipelines and allows the mixing and matching of choices for the underlying chemical action space, molecular representation, desired molecular properties, and RL algorithm. Our demo showcases the framework's capabilities applied to benchmark problems like quantitative estimate of drug-likeness and PLogP, as well as the design of novel small molecule solvents for carbon capture.

Current datasets for unwanted social bias auditing are limited to studying protected demographic features such as race and gender. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive benchmark that is meant to capture the amplification of social bias, via stigmas, in generative language models. Taking inspiration from social science research, we start with a documented list of 93 US-centric stigmas and curate a question-answering (QA) dataset which involves simple social situations. Our benchmark, SocialStigmaQA, contains roughly 10K prompts, with a variety of prompt styles, carefully constructed to systematically test for both social bias and model robustness. We present results for SocialStigmaQA with two open source generative language models and we find that the proportion of socially biased output ranges from 45% to 59% across a variety of decoding strategies and prompting styles. We demonstrate that the deliberate design of the templates in our benchmark (e.g., adding biasing text to the prompt or using different verbs that change the answer that indicates bias) impacts the model tendencies to generate socially biased output. Additionally, through manual evaluation, we discover problematic patterns in the generated chain-of-thought output that range from subtle bias to lack of reasoning. Warning: This paper contains examples of text which are toxic, biased, and potentially harmful.