Bias Unveiled: Investigating Social Bias in LLM-Generated Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the field of automated code generation. However, a notable research gap exists in evaluating social biases that may be present in the code produced by LLMs. To solve this issue, we propose a novel fairness framework, i.e., Solar, to assess and mitigate the social biases of LLM-generated code. Specifically, Solar can automatically generate test cases for quantitatively uncovering social biases of the auto-generated code by LLMs. To quantify the severity of social biases in generated code, we develop a dataset that covers a diverse set of social problems. We applied Solar and the crafted dataset to four state-of-the-art LLMs for code generation. Our evaluation reveals severe bias in the LLM-generated code from all the subject LLMs. Furthermore, we explore several prompting strategies for mitigating bias, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, combining positive role-playing with CoT prompting and dialogue with Solar. Our experiments show that dialogue with Solar can effectively reduce social bias in LLM-generated code by up to 90%. Last, we make the code and data publicly available is highly extensible to evaluate new social problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".