Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates fairness in LLM-based Quality Assurance (QA) systems for contact centers by evaluating 18 LLMs on 3,000 real-world transcripts across 13 dimensions using Counterfactual Flip Rate (CFR) and Mean Absolute Score Difference (MASD). The study reveals systematic disparities in LLM evaluations, with CFR ranging from 5.4% to 13.0% and MASD shifts across confidence, positive, and improvement scores, highlighting the impact of contextual priming and linguistic identity cues. While larger, more aligned models exhibit lower unfairness, fairness does not directly correlate with accuracy, and fairness-aware prompting yields only marginal improvements, emphasizing the need for robust fairness auditing.
LLM-based contact center QA systems exhibit systematic unfairness, with contextual priming inducing CFR increases up to 16.4%, even in larger, strongly aligned models.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contact-center Quality Assurance (QA) to automate agent performance evaluation and coaching feedback. While LLMs offer unprecedented scalability and speed, their reliance on web-scale training data raises concerns regarding demographic and behavioral biases that may distort workforce assessment. We present a counterfactual fairness evaluation of LLM-based QA systems across 13 dimensions spanning three categories: Identity, Context, and Behavioral Style. Fairness is quantified using the Counterfactual Flip Rate (CFR), the frequency of binary judgment reversals, and the Mean Absolute Score Difference (MASD), the average shift in coaching or confidence scores across counterfactual pairs. Evaluating 18 LLMs on 3,000 real-world contact center transcripts, we find systematic disparities, with CFR ranging from 5.4% to 13.0% and consistent MASD shifts across confidence, positive, and improvement scores. Larger, more strongly aligned models show lower unfairness, though fairness does not track accuracy. Contextual priming of historical performance induces the most severe degradations (CFR up to 16.4%), while implicit linguistic identity cues remain a persistent bias source. Finally, we analyze the efficacy of fairness-aware prompting, finding that explicit instructions yield only modest improvements in evaluative consistency. Our findings underscore the need for standardized fairness auditing pipelines prior to deploying LLMs in high-stakes workforce evaluation.
