Do LLMs Favor Their Providers? Measuring Vertical Integration Bias in Code Generation

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in agentic coding settings, where they can inspect files, execute commands, run tests, observe failures, and iteratively revise code. This shift raises a central evaluation question: can an agentic LLM generate an end-to-end software artifact that is both deployable and behaviorally correct under execution? Backend services provide a controlled but realistic substrate for this evaluation. Their APIs expose application-level executable semantics, and deployed behavior can be checked deterministically against an OpenAPI contract through black-box HTTP interactions. We introduce BackendForge, a benchmark of 56 contract-defined backend generation tasks rewritten from real open-source applications. Given a visible specification and an OpenAPI contract, an LLM must generate a Dockerized service that is built, deployed, and evaluated only through HTTP tests. To strengthen evaluation without introducing hidden requirements, BackendForge uses a test agent and a code agent to co-evolve the test oracle and reference service, where the test agent proposes specification-grounded backend tests and the code agent repairs the reference implementation. Although the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, succeeds on 55.4% of tasks under the base oracle, it succeeds on only 28.6% under the final oracle. This gap suggests that current LLMs can implement many local API behaviors, but still struggle to produce complete backend services.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely recognised for their applications in natural language generation and are increasingly used for code generation tasks. However, concerns about bias in their generated outputs remain significant. This paper focuses on GPT-4o and Gemini, mainstream tools for code generation, and proposes a framework for evaluating bias in LLM-generated code, specifically examining the influence of protected attributes, prompts and web-search capability. We use two metrics: the code bias score (CBS) and the attribute change ratio (ACR), to quantify the prevalence of bias and the degree of influence of different attributes, respectively. In addition, we investigate four lightweight mitigation strategies: Few-Shot, Chain-of-Thought, Few-Shot Chain-of-Thought, and Multi-agent, aimed at mitigating bias in generated code. Our findings reveal that bias remains prevalent across different protected attributes and datasets even after applying mitigation strategies, highlighting the need for more effective approaches to reduce bias in AI-driven code generation systems.