Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to interpret charts and generate natural-language explanations for socially consequential data. However, they may produce different narratives for the same chart when only the referenced social group changes, reinforcing stereotypes and misleading decisions. Despite these risks, no benchmark exists for systematically evaluating bias in chart interpretation across social dimensions. We introduce ChartBias, the first benchmark for auditing bias in VLM-based chart interpretation. ChartBias contains 820 manually curated real-world charts spanning six attributes—race, income, age, religion, immigration status, and gender—yielding 4,319 valid chart–attribute instances and 8,638 paired generations where the chart is fixed and only the group term is swapped. Across 12 proprietary and open-source VLMs, totaling 155,484 model responses, we find three widespread failure modes: narrative shift (same chart, different narratives), group hallucination (assigning a chart to a group without evidence), and preference polarity (favourable trends often linked to one group). We further propose a multi-agent mitigation framework that serves as a strong baseline by separating chart-grounded evidence extraction from group-conditioned generation and using a counterfactual judge to verify that group-driven differences are supported by the chart. The framework substantially reduces narrative shift while preserving chart-grounded reasoning. Our findings show that evaluating chart understanding requires measuring not only accuracy, but also fairness and consistency across social groups. We release ChartBias at <redacted>.

Bias evaluation in large language models (LLMs) uses many metrics and benchmarks, but lacks a systematic way to measure agreement across bias metrics and models. As a result, improvements observed under one metric may contradict another, and model rankings may reflect benchmark-specific artifacts rather than stable bias profiles. In this work, we introduce Metric Agreement Score (MeAS) and Model Agreement Score (MoAS), which quantify cross-metric and cross-model agreement in bias rankings, respectively. We apply these measures to eight LLMs, seven bias metrics, and nine corpora. Our results reveal disagreement among both metrics and models: Contrary to expectations, we find that metrics within the same category (generation-based and probabilistic) often behave independently of each other. For instance, HONEST shows independence with toxicity metrics, and the Context Association Test shows no correlation with Language Modeling Bias metric. At the model level, DeepSeek-family models invert bias rankings relative to most others, indicating that the model family strongly shapes specific bias profiles. These findings challenge the assumption that bias mitigation is universally transferable and highlight the need for agreement-aware evaluation.