Gender Artifacts from Art History to Text-to-Image Generation

Text-to-image generative models are widely used in professional and creative settings, yet how they represent gender across occupations -- and whether newer models are fairer -- remains poorly understood across multiple generations. We evaluate gender representation across 20 occupations, 5 prompt templates, and 4 Stable Diffusion model generations (SD 1.5, SD 2.1, SDXL, SD 3 Medium), generating 8,000 images with n = 100 per occupation-model cell (5 prompts x 20 images), and classifying all with DeepFace. Across the 8,000 open-source images, 76.4% show male subjects (95% CI [75.1%, 78.7%], p < 2.2 x 10^-16, Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted). More strikingly, 57.6% of images for historically female-coded occupations show male subjects (raw p = 3.43 x 10^-22, BH-adjusted p = 1.71 x 10^-21). All nine significant tests reported in this paper survive BH correction across 10 tests. When compared against U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce data, models underrepresent women by 20-46pp on average, with particularly large deviations for near gender-balanced occupations: scientist (48% female in BLS, 82-99% male in model outputs) and cleaner (46% female in BLS, 80-92% male in outputs). Model generations do not improve steadily: bias worsens from SD 1.5 to SDXL before partially recovering in SD 3 Medium. A preliminary comparison with GPT-image-1 on five occupations suggests lower bias than open-source models, though the practical effect is small (Cramer's V = 0.080) and the comparison is exploratory. No model achieves gender parity.

Generative text-to-image models are typically trained on large-scale web-scraped datasets that include diverse visual content such as copyrighted and stylistically distinctive artworks, raising concerns about ownership, attribution, and the unintended reuse of protected visual expressions. A key issue is that models can learn stylistic patterns from this data and reproduce them in generated outputs without any explicit reference in the prompt. We refer to this phenomenon as The Silent Brush, where such learned styles reappear even when they are not requested. Existing evaluation methods mainly focus on near-duplicate retrieval or membership inference and do not account for this form of unintended stylistic resurfacing across prompts. To address these gaps, we first formulate guiding principles for evaluation of The Silent Brush. We then introduce Art Arena, an evaluation protocol that measures how strongly artworks are encoded, how they interact, and how frequently their stylistic traits reappear in generated outputs without explicit mention in prompts. We evaluate Art Arena on widely used text-to-image diffusion models, including Stable Diffusion v1.5, Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL), and SANA-1.5, and design it to generalize across text-to-image generative systems. Our results show that The Silent Brush arises from differences in representational strength and interaction dynamics between artworks, leading to asymmetric blending in model generations. Code and evaluation resources are available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ArtArena-EBE4.

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.