Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: An SDLC-Oriented Rapid Review

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly take actions (screening applicants, recommending credit, triaging patients), yet fairness for LLMs is still measured by grading answers. We introduce AgentFairBench, a cheap, reproducible, multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in the actions of LLM agents. Grounded in a companion framework, the Bias Conduction Framework (BCF, restated here), it spans three regulator-anchored domains: hiring, lending, and medical triage. Synthetic, demographic-neutral profiles are evaluated in counterfactual matched sets that vary only a name-coded race x gender signal (in the Bertrand Mullainathan tradition), under four agent scaffolds of increasing agency (direct, chain-of-thought, multi-agent deliberation, tool-augmented). A NumPy-only harness computes counterfactual flip rate, mean absolute score difference (MASD), action-rate disparity, and tool-invocation disparity, with bootstrap confidence intervals, paired tests, and false-discovery-rate control, for single-digit dollars per model. A live leaderboard with a held-out private split and a contamination canary admits external models by submission. Our pilot (864 decisions plus a test-retest replication) carries a methodological lesson: comparing a six-group score spread against a two-run noise difference overstates disparity by ~ 2.4X through statistic arity alone. Against an arity matched noise floor and an omnibus group test, claude haiku 4 5 shows no demographic effect above sampling noise (0 of 120 pairwise and 0 of 9 omnibus contrasts survive correction); a planted-bias test confirms the instrument detects disparity when present. The contribution is a sound, sensitive, adoption-ready instrument, the arity matched null methodology, and open artifacts to scale it. Code, data, and harness are released under open licenses, with an anonymized review artifact.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to generate code for human-centered applications where demographic fairness is critical. However, existing evaluations focus almost exclusively on functional correctness, leaving social bias in LLM-generated code largely unexamined. Extending our prior work on Solar, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study using SocialBias-Bench, a benchmark of 343 real-world coding tasks spanning seven demographic dimensions. We evaluate four prominent LLMs and find severe bias across all models, with Code Bias Scores reaching up to 60.58%. We further show that standard prompt-level interventions, such as Chain-of-Thought reasoning and fairness persona assignment, inadvertently amplify bias rather than reduce it. We then investigate whether structured multi-agent software process frameworks can improve fairness, finding that structured pipelines reduce bias when early roles correctly scope what the code should and should not consider. However, adding explicit fairness instructions to all agent roles produces worse outcomes than providing none, suggesting that diffused responsibility goes unaddressed. To address these limitations, we propose the Fairness Monitor Agent (FMA), a modular component that plugs into any existing code generation pipeline without modifying it. FMA analyzes the task description to determine which attributes should be considered or restricted, then detects and corrects violations through an iterative review process, without requiring an executable test suite. Evaluated on all 343 tasks, FMA reduces bias by 65.1% compared to a developer agent alone and improves functional correctness from 75.80% to 83.97%, outperforming all other studied approaches.