Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2507.02533

Meta-Fair: AI-Assisted Fairness Testing of Large Language Models

Abstract

Fairness--the absence of unjustified bias--is a core principle in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, yet it remains difficult to assess and enforce. Current approaches to fairness testing in large language models (LLMs) often rely on manual evaluation, fixed templates, deterministic heuristics, and curated datasets, making them resource-intensive and difficult to scale. This work aims to lay the groundwork for a novel, automated method for testing fairness in LLMs, reducing the dependence on domain-specific resources and broadening the applicability of current approaches. Our approach, Meta-Fair, is based on two key ideas. First, we adopt metamorphic testing to uncover bias by examining how model outputs vary in response to controlled modifications of input prompts, defined by metamorphic relations (MRs). Second, we propose exploiting the potential of LLMs for both test case generation and output evaluation, leveraging their capability to generate diverse inputs and classify outputs effectively. The proposal is complemented by three open-source tools supporting LLM-driven generation, execution, and evaluation of test cases. We report the findings of several experiments involving 12 pre-trained LLMs, 14 MRs, 5 bias dimensions, and 7.9K automatically generated test cases. The results show that Meta-Fair is effective in uncovering bias in LLMs, achieving an average precision of 92% and revealing biased behaviour in 29% of executions. Additionally, LLMs prove to be reliable and consistent evaluators, with the best-performing models achieving F1-scores of up to 0.79. Although non-determinism affects consistency, these effects can be mitigated through careful MR design. While challenges remain to ensure broader applicability, the results indicate a promising path towards an unprecedented level of automation in LLM testing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Miguel Romero-Arjona, José A. Parejo, Juan C. Alonso, Ana B. Sánchez, Aitor Arrieta, Sergio Segura. 2026-01-12. Meta-Fair: AI-Assisted Fairness Testing of Large Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02533

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE