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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02533v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2025 11:20:59 GMT
• Title: Meta-Fair: AI-Assisted Fairness Testing of Large Language Models
• Authors: Miguel Romero-Arjona, José A. Parejo, Juan C. Alonso, Ana B. Sánchez, Aitor Arrieta, Sergio Segura,
• Abstract summary: Fairness is a core principle in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems.<n>Current approaches to fairness testing in large language models (LLMs) often rely on manual evaluation, fixed templates, deterministics, and curated datasets.<n>This work aims to lay the groundwork for a novel, automated method for testing fairness in LLMs.
• Score: 2.9632404823837777
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• FairReason: Balancing Reasoning and Social Bias in MLLMs [50.618158642714505]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) already achieve state-of-the-art results across a wide range of tasks and modalities.<n>Recent studies explore advanced prompting schemes and post-training fine-tuning to push their reasoning ability further.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T19:57:22Z)
• Is Your Model Fairly Certain? Uncertainty-Aware Fairness Evaluation for LLMs [7.197702136906138]
  We propose an uncertainty-aware fairness metric, UCerF, to enable a fine-grained evaluation of model fairness.<n> observing data size, diversity, and clarity issues in current datasets, we introduce a new gender-occupation fairness evaluation dataset.<n>We establish a benchmark, using our metric and dataset, and apply it to evaluate the behavior of ten open-source AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T20:45:18Z)
• Improving Fairness in LLMs Through Testing-Time Adversaries [1.7811840395202343]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) push the bound-aries in natural language processing and generative AI.<n>In this work, we propose a straightforward, user-friendly and practical method to mitigate such biases.<n>Our method creates multiple variations of a given sentence by modifying specific attributes and evaluates the corresponding prediction behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T17:56:53Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• Metamorphic Testing for Fairness Evaluation in Large Language Models: Identifying Intersectional Bias in LLaMA and GPT [2.380039717474099]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides in Natural Language Processing but remain vulnerable to fairness-related issues.<n>This paper introduces a metamorphic testing approach to systematically identify fairness bugs in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T21:04:14Z)
• LLMs are Biased Evaluators But Not Biased for Retrieval Augmented Generation [28.61326111959728]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant biases in evaluation tasks, particularly in preferentially rating and favoring self-generated content. Our study addresses this knowledge gap by simulating two critical phases of the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. Contrary to previous findings, our results reveal no significant self-preference effect in RAG frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T08:32:09Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Uncertainty Aware Learning for Language Model Alignment [97.36361196793929]
  We propose uncertainty-aware learning (UAL) to improve the model alignment of different task scenarios. We implement UAL in a simple fashion -- adaptively setting the label smoothing value of training according to the uncertainty of individual samples. Experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that our UAL significantly and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T11:37:45Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.