Beyond Categories of Caste: Examining Caste Bias and Morality in Text-to-Image AI Models

Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to improve productivity and transform the production of creative content. However, existing research indicates that image generation models are significantly influenced by biases. This work investigates the inherent biases and language-induced biases present in text-to-image models within the context of occupation-related image generation, complementing established metrics with human preference feedback. We present a comprehensive evaluation of five current text-to-image models: Midjourney v6.1, Stable Diffusion 3 Medium, DALL-E 3, Playground v2.5, and FLUX.1-dev , focusing on gender and ethnicity bias, image quality, and prompt alignment. To facilitate this evaluation, we developed the "Battle-Arena for Fair Image Synthesis" (BAFIS), a platform designed to collect human feedback on bias in generated images. Furthermore, we created a dataset comprising 21,140 synthetic images generated using multilingual prompts, which serves as a basis for our analysis. We further place our results within a broader social context by comparing them to official statistics from the German Federal Employment Agency. Our findings reveal systematic biases in text-to-image models, with established evaluation metrics in partial correlation with subjective user ratings. Thus, our research emphasizes the need for including human preferences to develop fairer and more inclusive text-to-image models.

Text-to-image (T2I) generative models are increasingly used to produce content for education, media, and public-facing communication, and are starting to be integrated into higher-impact pipelines. Since generated images tend to reinforce stereotypes, producing representational erasure via "default" depictions and shaping perceptions of who belongs in certain roles, a growing body of work has proposed metrics to quantify gender bias in T2I outputs. Yet existing evaluations remain fragmented. Metrics are often reported without a shared view of what they measure, what assumptions they entail, or how their results should be interpreted under different deployment contexts. This limits the usefulness of gender bias measurement for both technical auditing and emerging governance discussions. We propose a risk-aligned auditing framework for gender bias in T2I models composed of three constituents that connects risk categories, evaluation metrics, and harms. First, we identify risk-tiered use-case profiles aligned with the EU AI Act's risk categories to motivate why auditing expectations may vary with deployment contexts and stakeholder exposure. Second, we construct a metric catalog that consolidates gender-bias evaluation methods and organizes them in three measurement categories: gender prediction, embedding similarity, and downstream task. Third, we introduce a harm typology that maps context-dependent harm categories (e.g., representational, quality-of-service) to specific risk-tired scenarios. Finally, we introduce THUMB cards (Text-to-image Harms-informed Use-case-aligned Metrics of gender Bias) that help formulate auditing systematically by the incorporation of context, scenario and bias manifestation, harm hypotheses, and audit strategy.

Text-to-image (T2I) models are typically evaluated for bias using slot-based templates such as ``a photo of a [profession]''. Such templates probe only \emph{explicit} demographic attributes (e.g., gender, skin tone) in isolation. They overlook a broader \emph{implicit} bias that arises in natural prompts: when stereotype-relevant attributes are left unspecified, models still default to stereotypical outputs. We introduce IMPLICIT-Bench, a benchmark for measuring implicit bias in T2I models under such prompts. The key design is a structured-knowledge-graph (KG) construction of controlled prompt triplets: neutral, stereotype, and anti-stereotype variants that differ only along a single bias dimension while preserving scene semantics. This enables precise attribution of bias effects that template benchmarks cannot achieve. IMPLICIT-Bench comprises 5,493 prompts across 11 bias categories, validated through multi-model agreement, CLIP-based verification, and human evaluation. Using this benchmark, we show that state-of-the-art T2I models exhibit systematic bias under neutral prompts, a failure mode largely invisible to existing evaluations. We then use IMPLICIT-Bench to evaluate debiasing methods, uncovering a fundamental trade-off between bias reduction and semantic fidelity.