Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Uncovering and Quantifying Social Biases in Code Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.15377 v1 pith:5DOJW3O6 submitted 2023-05-24 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords codesocialgenerationbiasesmodelsbiaspre-trainedthree
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the popularity of automatic code generation tools, such as Copilot, the study of the potential hazards of these tools is gaining importance. In this work, we explore the social bias problem in pre-trained code generation models. We propose a new paradigm to construct code prompts and successfully uncover social biases in code generation models. To quantify the severity of social biases in generated code, we develop a dataset along with three metrics to evaluate the overall social bias and fine-grained unfairness across different demographics. Experimental results on three pre-trained code generation models (Codex, InCoder, and CodeGen) with varying sizes, reveal severe social biases. Moreover, we conduct analysis to provide useful insights for further choice of code generation models with low social bias. (This work contains examples that potentially implicate stereotypes, associations, and other harms that could be offensive to individuals in certain social groups.)

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 3 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. LangChoiceBench: Measuring and Explaining Programming-Language Choice in LLMs

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs implement 35.3% of benchmark projects in Python despite recommending it only 10.7% of the time, mostly because the choice is automatic rather than deliberate.

Pith tools