A Framework for Identifying, Categorizing, and Explaining Bias in AI-Generated Code

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.

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.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed modern software development by enabling automated code generation at scale. While these systems improve productivity, they introduce new challenges for software governance, accountability, and compliance. Existing research primarily focuses on distinguishing machine-generated code from human-written code; however, many practical scenarios--such as vulnerability triage, incident investigation, and licensing audits--require identifying which LLM produced a given code snippet. In this paper, we study the problem of model-level code attribution, which aims to determine the source LLM responsible for generated code. Although attribution is challenging, differences in training data, architectures, alignment strategies, and decoding mechanisms introduce model-dependent stylistic and structural variations that serve as generative fingerprints. Leveraging this observation, we propose the Disentangled Code Attribution Network (DCAN), which separates Source-Agnostic semantic information from Source-Specific stylistic representations. Through a contrastive learning objective, DCAN isolates discriminative model-dependent signals while preserving task semantics, enabling multi-class attribution across models and programming languages. To support systematic evaluation, we construct the first large-scale benchmark dataset comprising code generated by four widely used LLMs (DeepSeek, Claude, Qwen, and ChatGPT) across four programming languages (Python, Java, C, and Go). Experimental results demonstrate that DCAN achieves reliable attribution performance across diverse settings, highlighting the feasibility of model-level provenance analysis in software engineering contexts. The dataset and implementation are publicly available at https://github.com/mtt500/DCAN.