FairCode: Evaluating Social Bias of LLMs in Code Generation

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant capability in code generation, drawing increasing attention to the evaluation of the quality and safety of their outputs. However, research on bias in code generation remains limited. Existing studies typically assess bias by applying malicious prompts or reapply tasks and dataset for discriminative models. Given that LLMs are often aligned with human values and that prior datasets are not fully optimized for code-related tasks, there is a pressing need for benchmarks specifically designed for evaluating code models. In this study, we introduce FairCode, a novel benchmark for evaluating bias in code generation. FairCode comprises two tasks: function implementation and test case generation, each evaluating social bias through diverse scenarios. Additionally, we propose a new metric, FairScore, to assess model performance on this benchmark. We conduct experiments on widely used LLMs and provide a comprehensive analysis of the results. The findings reveal that all tested LLMs exhibit bias. The code is available at https://github.com/YongkDu/FairCode.

SCORE: A framework for Self-Contradictory Reasoning Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning ability in various language-based tasks. Despite many proposed reasoning methods aimed at enhancing performance in downstream tasks, two fundamental questions persist: Does reasoning genuinely support predictions, and how reliable is the quality of reasoning? In this paper, we propose a framework \textsc{SCORE} to analyze how well LLMs can reason. Specifically, we focus on self-contradictory reasoning, where reasoning does not support the prediction. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves when performing reasoning tasks that involve contextual information and commonsense. The model may miss evidence or use shortcuts, thereby exhibiting self-contradictory behaviors. We also employ the Point-of-View (POV) method, which probes models to generate reasoning from multiple perspectives, as a diagnostic tool for further analysis. We find that though LLMs may appear to perform well in one-perspective settings, they fail to stabilize such behavior in multi-perspectives settings. Even for correct predictions, the reasoning may be messy and incomplete, and LLMs can easily be led astray from good reasoning. \textsc{SCORE}'s results underscore the lack of robustness required for trustworthy reasoning and the urgency for further research to establish best practices for a comprehensive evaluation of reasoning beyond accuracy-based metrics.