Counterfactual Fairness Evaluation of LLM-Based Contact Center Agent Quality Assurance System

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14970v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 17:56:18 GMT
• Title: Counterfactual Fairness Evaluation of LLM-Based Contact Center Agent Quality Assurance System
• Authors: Kawin Mayilvaghanan, Siddhant Gupta, Ayush Kumar,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contact-center Quality Assurance (QA) to automate agent performance evaluation and coaching feedback.<n>We present a counterfactual fairness evaluation of LLM-based QA systems across 13 dimensions spanning three categories: Identity, Context, and Behavioral Style.
• Score: 2.5609209153559513
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contact-center Quality Assurance (QA) to automate agent performance evaluation and coaching feedback. While LLMs offer unprecedented scalability and speed, their reliance on web-scale training data raises concerns regarding demographic and behavioral biases that may distort workforce assessment. We present a counterfactual fairness evaluation of LLM-based QA systems across 13 dimensions spanning three categories: Identity, Context, and Behavioral Style. Fairness is quantified using the Counterfactual Flip Rate (CFR), the frequency of binary judgment reversals, and the Mean Absolute Score Difference (MASD), the average shift in coaching or confidence scores across counterfactual pairs. Evaluating 18 LLMs on 3,000 real-world contact center transcripts, we find systematic disparities, with CFR ranging from 5.4% to 13.0% and consistent MASD shifts across confidence, positive, and improvement scores. Larger, more strongly aligned models show lower unfairness, though fairness does not track accuracy. Contextual priming of historical performance induces the most severe degradations (CFR up to 16.4%), while implicit linguistic identity cues remain a persistent bias source. Finally, we analyze the efficacy of fairness-aware prompting, finding that explicit instructions yield only modest improvements in evaluative consistency. Our findings underscore the need for standardized fairness auditing pipelines prior to deploying LLMs in high-stakes workforce evaluation.

Related papers

• Uncertainty and Fairness Awareness in LLM-Based Recommendation Systems [3.937681476010311]
  This paper studies how uncertainty and fairness evaluations affect the accuracy, consistency, and trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs)<n>We quantify predictive uncertainty (via entropy) and demonstrate that Google DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 Flash exhibits systematic unfairness for certain sensitive attributes.<n>We propose a novel uncertainty-aware evaluation methodology for RecLLMs, present empirical insights from deep uncertainty case studies, and introduce a personality profile-informed fairness benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T17:18:13Z)
• Evaluating and Mitigating LLM-as-a-judge Bias in Communication Systems [32.83708359216193]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems.<n>This paper systematically investigates judgment biases in two LLM-as-a-judge models under the point-wise scoring setting.<n>We propose four potential mitigation strategies to ensure fair and reliable AI judging in practical communication scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T12:52:29Z)
• HALF: Harm-Aware LLM Fairness Evaluation Aligned with Deployment [52.374772443536045]
  HALF (Harm-Aware LLM Fairness) is a framework that assesses model bias in realistic applications and weighs the outcomes by harm severity.<n>We show that HALF exposes a clear gap between previous benchmarking success and deployment readiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T07:13:26Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• LLMEval-3: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study on Robust and Fair Evaluation of Large Language Models [51.55869466207234]
  Existing evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on static benchmarks is vulnerable to data contamination and leaderboard overfitting.<n>We introduce LLMEval-3, a framework for dynamic evaluation of LLMs.<n>LLEval-3 is built on a proprietary bank of 220k graduate-level questions, from which it dynamically samples unseen test sets for each evaluation run.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T14:46:30Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Generative AI for Scoring Medical Student Interviews in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) [0.5434005537854512]
  This study explored the potential of large language models (LLMs) to automate OSCE evaluations using the Master Interview Rating Scale (MIRS)<n>We compared the performance of four state-of-the-art LLMs in evaluating OSCE transcripts across all 28 items of the MIRS under the conditions of zero-shot, chain-of-thought (CoT), few-shot, and multi-step prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T04:05:45Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language.<n>LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.<n>We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)

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.