# Counterfactual Fairness Evaluation of LLM-Based Contact Center Agent Quality Assurance System

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14970 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14970/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 14 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [Counterfactual Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.06856/) (2017)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.00133/) (2020)
- [European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.08813/) (2016)
- [Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22458/) (2025)
- [On the Multi-turn Instruction Following for Conversational Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15057/) (2024)
- [JobFair: A Framework for Benchmarking Gender Hiring Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15484/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Bias in LLMs for Job-Resume Matching: Gender, Race, and Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19182/) (2025)
- [AI Coach Assist: An Automated Approach for Call Recommendation in Contact Centers for Agent Coaching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17619/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Bias in Spoken Dialogue LLMs for Real-World Decisions and Recommendations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.02352/) (2025)
- [LogiDebrief: A Signal-Temporal Logic based Automated Debriefing Approach with Large Language Models Integration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.03985/) (2025)
- [Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Conversational AI Chatbots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06105/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16723/) (2026)
- [When Names Change Verdicts: Intervention Consistency Reveals Systematic Bias in LLM Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18530/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.