用真实对话行为评估大模型公平性，比标准测试更可靠

LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ behavioral pattern rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks. We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable: surface-level prompt construction choices, although entirely orthogonal to the fairness question being tested, account for the majority of score variance, shift fairness conclusions in both the direction and the magnitude, and result in severe discordance in model rankings. We develop MAC-Fairness, a framework that embeds controlled variation factors into in-situ behavioral evaluation, examining how models' disparate-treatment behaviors shift when identity is varied as part of natural multi-agent conversation. Repurposing standardized-test questions as conversation seeds rather than as the evaluation instrument, we evaluate within-model differences in position persistence (how they hold positions, from the self-perspective) and peer receptiveness (how receptive they are to peers, from the other-perspective) across 8 million conversation transcripts spanning multiple models and identity presence configurations. In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific, disparate-treatment behavioral signatures that could generalize across different fairness benchmarks, a form of evidence the standardized-test paradigm does not offer.