Algorithmic Bias

Spoken language identification (LID) aims to recognize the target language regardless of accent. In practice, however, LID models fine-tuned from self-supervised speech representations frequently confuse accents with languages, misclassifying non-native (L2) speech as the speaker's first language (L1). We show that non-native speech representations lie between native target-language and native L1 poles, causing systematic misclassification. To address this, we introduce a geometric projection that estimates an L1-bias direction solely from native speech and removes it before the frozen LID head. Across five MMS-LID models and non-native corpora, this projection substantially improves target language identification for L2-accented speech while preserving predictions for native speech. These results show that accent-induced L1 bias can be corrected directly within the representation space without L2 training data or model adaptation.

Institutional Analytics (IA) dashboards inform decision-making in higher education, yet data limitations, constraints in analytical techniques, and missing contextual information often affect their interpretation. To support more responsible interpretation of IA, we introduce FACTRIA, a framework that organizes potential biasing factors across four areas: the analytics pipeline, institutional context, course-level characteristics, and demographics. We used the FACTRIA framework as input to a generative-AI chatbot designed to prompt users to reflect on these factors while analyzing IA. A qualitative study with stakeholders, drawing on four authentic IA cases, and a transition network analysis showed that the chatbot prompted participants to recognize how overlooked factors influenced their initial interpretation. Findings indicated that combining a structured framework with AI-based guidance can enhance context-aware, responsible interpretation of institutional data.

Deep learning has advanced chest X-ray (CXR) diagnosis, yet demographic biases in learned representations may contribute to performance disparities across intersectional groups. We propose a single-encoder framework combining dual-level decorrelation with prototype-guided cross-group contrastive learning to reduce demographic dependence while accounting for within-class variation. We further propose Demographic Representation Alignment Reduction (DRAR), a new metric that quantifies the reduction in demographic structure within disease representations. The framework is evaluated on four classification tasks using 34,809 CheXpert test images across eight intersectional groups, defined by age, sex and ethnicity. Compared with empirical risk minimization (ERM), our method reduces the mean equalized-odds gap from 15.41% to 10.86% and the AUC gap from 5.95% to 5.01%. Our method achieves a DRAR of 59.04% relative to ERM, with only a slight decrease in mean AUC. These results demonstrate that representation disentanglement can reduce demographic bias and improve intersectional fairness. Code is available at https://github.com/06Yujie/Fair-Medical-Imaging.

Bias in AI systems is typically framed as a flaw to be minimized, yet it also serves as a critical indicator of underlying weaknesses in data, modeling assumptions, and system design. Existing approaches often treat bias as an isolated problem rather than as evidence that can strengthen verification and governance across the AI lifecycle. This paper aims to reconceptualize bias as a diagnostic tool that supports rigorous AI verification. We seek to develop a multidimensional framework to analyze bias, demonstrate how biases emerge in both Traditional and Generative AI, and provide a structured pathway for verification-driven mitigation. We present a multidimensional framework analyzing bias across four dimensions: origin sources, emergence points throughout the AI modeling lifecycle, technical and methodological causes, and validation approaches for detection and mitigation. Through a comprehensive typology spanning traditional and generative AI systems, we demonstrate how biases manifest and propagate across development stages. Our analysis encompasses 30 distinct bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures, providing an actionable roadmap for practitioners. We introduce a hierarchical evidence framework that distinguishes internal validity (mechanistic integrity of AI systems) from external validity (contextual reliability in deployment environments). The framework reveals how biases manifest and propagate across modeling stages, enabling systematic mapping between bias types, verification techniques, and effective countermeasures. The proposed evidence hierarchy clarifies how different verification strategies contribute to mechanistic integrity and contextual reliability. We advocate for ''Ethics by Design'' principles that integrate bias verification throughout the development lifecycle, enabling the construction of fairer, more robust, and trustworthy AI systems.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) minimises aggregate reconstruction error, which can inadvertently represent majority subgroups with substantially higher fidelity than minority subgroups. Fairness-aware extensions of PCA correct this disparity but require group labels as input. We address the logically prior question: given only a data matrix, which binary partition of the data suffers the greatest representational disparity under a shared PCA projection? We formalise this as the max-disparity partition problem and propose a greedy local-search algorithm, grounded in the Fiduccia-Mattheyses bipartitioning framework, that discovers the disparity-maximising partition without any predefined group labels. Two benchmark algorithms, a fixed-projection sorting baseline and a simulated-annealing variant, confirm that the greedy solution is empirically near-optimal. Having identified the partition, we attribute the disparity to specific features via PCA loading scores and association rule mining, enabling a practitioner to assess whether the disadvantaged group corresponds to a human-meaningful minority. On the Predict Students' Dropout and Academic Success dataset, representational disparity is driven predominantly by institutional and programmatic proxies for socioeconomic disadvantage, with gender emerging as a secondary but consistent contributor within the disadvantaged group. The discovered partition is then passed directly to Fair PCA, completing a detect-explain-mitigate pipeline.

Despite steady progress in face recognition, current face recognition models still suffer from significant demographic biases. While approaches for bias mitigation have been proposed, existing methods often impose constraints on the training procedure and result in the degradation of recognition accuracy. To address this issue, we here introduce a method that reduces racial bias in pre-trained face recognition models without compromising their accuracy. To this end, we model face embeddings of each person by von Mises-Fisher (MF) distribution. We next observe the dependency between demographic attributes and the density of MF distributions, and propose DenseFace, a probabilistic face matching procedure that accounts for differences in MF distributions. Our extensive experiments demonstrate DenseFace to consistently reduce racial bias in strong face recognition models varying in network architectures, training datasets and loss functions. Notably, DenseFace preserves recognition accuracy and requires no retraining of the underlying face recognition model. Our work also investigates previously adopted bias measures and makes suggestions.

Protein-protein interaction (PPI) databases do not faithfully reflect biological realities. Instead, they are influenced by study and technical biases that distort certain protein and interaction attributes. Machine learning models can exploit these as learning shortcuts if the negative dataset is not constructed with care. So far, the shortcuts introduced during PPI dataset construction have only been examined in isolation. Here, we systematically characterize both reported and, to our knowledge, previously unreported biases in PPI datasets that lead machine learning models to learn shortcuts instead of biological signal. We analyze HIPPIE, IntAct, and STRING, dedicated PPI databases, as well as two datasets derived from 3D-structural information in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). We show that random data splitting introduces strong topological shortcuts. When train-test protein overlap is removed, the resulting datasets still retain usable shortcuts stemming from self-interactions, taxonomic identity, and functional relatedness, whose prevalence interestingly depends on the data source. We further show that sampling negatives from a set of high-confidence non-interactors, an intuitively appealing choice, can amplify the shortcut stemming from functional relatedness. To detect and mitigate these biases, we provide an open Nextflow pipeline that combines similarity-aware, data-loss-minimizing dataset splitting with bias-minimizing negative sampling, both formulated as integer linear programs. Its key concept of quantifying biases to minimize them through optimization-based negative sampling can, in principle, be extended to any machine learning problem where the pool of negative candidates is much larger than the positives and is thus of interest also beyond PPI prediction.

Bias in human-agent interaction can manifest not only through hostile language but also as benevolent bias, whereby unequal treatment hides behind a warm, positive tone. To make it detectable, we operationalise benevolent bias along two dimensions, tone and treatment, yielding three classes: neutral support, overt bias, and benevolent bias. Building on these definitions, we construct BENEVDIAL, a class-balanced corpus of 362,880 multi-turn support dialogues spanning user and agent demographics, roles, and generators, to support controlled evaluation. We then test two detector families on it: off-the-shelf safety detectors and prompted large language model (LLM) judges. Our findings reveal a notable detection gap: off-the-shelf detectors reliably flag overt bias yet largely fail to identify benevolent bias. LLM judges improve sensitivity when guided by explicit detection criteria, but this comes at the cost of increased misclassification of neutral supportive statements as benevolent bias, a tendency that is further exacerbated by the presence of demographic context. These findings suggest that fair monitoring of human-agent dialogue must look beyond surface cues to whether the agent's treatment is disparate.

Popularity bias in recommendation systems arises when a majority user class generates disproportionate interaction data, causing the system to increasingly favour it while degrading recommendation quality for niche users. While extensive empirical evidence of popularity bias exists, the dynamics leading to its emergence are not well understood. In this work, we study the coupled evolution of recommender model updates and user engagement through the lens of dynamical systems. We formulate a stochastic process and analyse its asymptotic behaviour through an ordinary differential equation (ODE) framework grounded in two-time-scale stochastic approximation. We characterise the equilibrium points of this dynamical system, and derive conditions under which popularity bias is provably emergent, as well as conditions under which symmetric retention of all user classes is possible. We conduct experiments on synthetic data and real-world production logs derived from a large-scale commercial music recommendation platform to validate our theoretical results.

AI tools are being increasingly adopted in policing in the UK and worldwide. Racial bias is a known and well-documented risk, yet representatives of affected communities are rarely included in decisions about AI adoption. We present results from a mixed-stakeholder deliberation workshop bringing together 30 community representatives, police officers, and academics to assess the risks of 13 AI use cases in policing, with an explicit focus on racial bias. We found that participants were broadly open to AI adoption, rejecting only three use cases outright, most notably recidivism risk assessment, where objections targeted the premise rather than the implementation. Our analysis reveals that foregrounding racial equity did not narrow the deliberation. Instead, discussions gravitated toward a fundamental set of questions: does this tool actually work, will it deliver genuine benefit, and will that benefit extend to everyone? This integrated reasoning, reminiscent of the curb-cut effect in inclusive design, highlights the benefit of incorporating the racial bias lens into the risk-benefit analysis of AI use cases from the outset.

Bandit algorithms generate data for downstream inference, but adaptive sampling biases post-bandit sample means. We analyze this bias for stable index algorithms, including UCB1 and its generalizations, and derive sharp leading-order expressions for the sample-mean bias and expected $Z$-statistic, in bandit experiments of fixed horizon $T$. Our characterization reveals the algorithmic origin of bias through a key index-function-dependent quantity, which we term effective exploration rate. For example, under UCB1, the effective exploration rate is of order $\sqrt{\log T}$, and the standardized bias of any arm (that is not uniquely optimal) decays at the extremely slow rate $1/\sqrt{\log T}$. We also show how the choice of the index function affects both regret and bias, which reveals a regret-bias trade-off: more exploratory algorithm reduces bias but increases regret. We further show how bias most severely distorts confidence intervals and hypothesis tests when the tested arm is one of the tied-optimal arms. Our sharp characterization for bias uses a novel empirical fluid approximation of the algorithm's sampling dynamics, which may be of independent interest.

Online platforms increasingly rely on automated age estimation systems to enforce minimum-age policies. Focusing on vision-based models designed for this task, concerns arise regarding their robustness to simple appearance changes that underage individuals may use to bypass such systems, such as drawing a mustache or applying lipstick. In this work, we present a systematic study of age verification robustness by simulating visual alterations that can be easily achieved by underage individuals. We evaluate seven models, including vision, vision-language, and multimodal large language models, across three datasets and four manipulation types. Interestingly, under drawn beard stubble, up to 61% of True Negatives are flipped into False Positives. Furthermore, we investigate how different demographics are affected by such manipulations, finding that Indians are more affected by beard stubble manipulations, while females are more affected than males across all manipulations. Finally, we explore how these biases can be mitigated using bias mitigation methodologies in lightweight linear probe settings.

Acoustic biomarkers show promise for detecting Alzheimer's Disease (AD), yet whether the cues driving diagnostic AI align with those salient to human listeners is underexplored across languages and genders, where pathological markers and perceptual strategies differ. We train models to predict clinical AD status (pathology) and human perceptual scores across Mandarin and Greek, male and female speakers. Using SHAP for interpretability and statistical models for validation, we compare feature importance by subgroup. Results reveal a context-dependent divergence: pathological-perceptual alignment is significant for Mandarin and female speakers but disappears for Greek and male speakers, where pathology models did not exceed chance; this is a failure mode that population-specific auditing surfaces. Global Explainable AI (XAI) explanations can mask critical demographic divergences, highlighting the need for population-specific explainability auditing for equitable deployment of clinical speech AI.

Breast MRI is highly sensitive for detecting breast tumors, but exams contain many slices and require substantial reading time. Deep learning models often perform well on internal splits but can fail across institutions because of domain shift and dataset-origin bias. We study this failure mode for binary breast MRI tumor classification. EfficientNet-B3 and WaveViT-Small are trained using Duke Breast Cancer MRI and fastMRI, and evaluated only on the independent multi-center MAMA-MIA cohort. In a deliberately confounded setup, where label is perfectly correlated with dataset origin, external accuracy is near chance (0.5048--0.5265), despite very high recall. We then construct a mixed training set in which each class contains samples from both Duke and fastMRI, while preserving patient-level splitting, augmentation, and leakage controls. On MAMA-MIA, dataset mixing improves accuracy/F1 to 0.8463/0.8625 for WaveViT-Small and 0.8884/0.8994 for EfficientNet-B3. These results show that controlling dataset-origin bias is important for reliable breast MRI classification.

Recent findings suggest that detection models for artificial intelligence (AI) cannot accurately identify AI-generated text and may exhibit bias against certain minority groups. In the present study, anecdotal claims that autistic writers more often have their work flagged as AI-generated are examined empirically. A corpus of approximately 60,000 Reddit posts split into "likely-autistic" and "general-Reddit" subcorpora is used to compare the distribution of probabilities output by the OpenAI GPT-2 detection model. Differences in textual features between subcorpora are observed and compared to reported features of AI-generated text. Results showed that while less than two-percent of either subcorpus was flagged as AI-generated by the model, significantly more texts from the likely-autistic subcorpus were flagged. Connections between features of text with likely-autistic authors and AI-generated text were not straightforward. The widespread use of AI-detection models with a potential bias against autistic writers in their output prompts ethical scrutiny, and the authors recommend further critical examination of the models themselves as well as their use in academic contexts.

Music aesthetics scoring plays a critical role in applications such as dataset curation, generative model evaluation, and reward modeling for music generation. Recent approaches rely on deep neural networks trained on human-annotated ratings, but these models may exploit spurious correlations rather than capturing perceptually meaningful aesthetics. In this work, we identify a previously underexplored failure mode in music evaluation models: genre-induced shortcut learning. Through a systematic analysis of SongEval, we show that biases in training data lead to strong correlations between genre-related features and predicted scores, causing the model to use them as a proxy for aesthetics. This results in systematic overestimation of pop music and undervaluation of high-quality samples from other genres, leading to predictions that are inconsistent with human preferences. To address this issue, we propose a training objective that jointly reweights hard samples and regularizes group-level performance, encouraging the model to learn genre-invariant representations of musicality. Experimental results demonstrate that our method reduces genre-dependent bias and improves alignment with human preferences, as reflected by gains in both cross-genre and within-genre preference alignment.

Preprocessing-based methods for stereotype mitigation, such as pre-/post-training on debiased corpora, are widely used in NLP. While these approaches reduce measurable stereotypes for targeted groups, we find they often induce unintended shifts-side effects, where stereotyping or counter-stereotyping can increase relative to neutral baselines for other demographics, including across unrelated demographic categories. We demonstrate these side effects across two model families (encoder-only and decoder-only), multiple preprocessing strategies (removing stereotypical sentences, removing group mentions, and swapping group references), and both pre- and post-training at different data scales on Wikipedia. Standard benchmarks frequently miss these shifts. Using attention-rollout analysis, we observe that such side effects are not accompanied by large changes in attention flow, complicating mechanistic explanations. We discuss implications for evaluation, provide actionable diagnostics, and argue for side-effect-aware, transparent mitigation practices.

This study investigates the presence and propagation of bias within Neural Networks through a comprehensive multi-level analysis spanning the learned latent space, layer activations, and the network's parameters. Based on this taxonomy, we propose three bias detection approaches: 1) SpaceBias (new method), which characterizes the latent space prior to the final classification layer using neighbor-probability distributions and quantifies bias with the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the per-group distributions. 2) ActivationBias (extension of the existing method InsideBias), which analyzes the activations of neural network filters and quantifies bias via a Mann-Whitney U test, based on the observed fact that underrepresented groups exhibit lower activation levels in the final convolutional layers. 3) WeightBias (extension of the existing method IFBiD), which uses a secondary neural network trained to identify biased patterns directly in the parameters of task-specific models. Unlike conventional methods, which assess neural network outcomes and treat the model as a black box, our proposed techniques provide insight into how biases manifest within the network architecture itself at different levels, offering a more nuanced and detailed understanding. Experiments are conducted on two complementary applications: gender classification in the DiveFace dataset (72,000 face images) and digit classification on a colored-MNIST benchmark with controlled bias severity. In total, more than 127,000 models with varying degrees and types of bias were trained and evaluated. The severity sweep shows that the internal disparity, and with it the detection performance, decreases smoothly as the training distribution approaches balance. The results highlight the importance of methods that provide deeper insight into the behavior of AI models.

Artificial intelligence increasingly mediates consequential decisions in healthcare, law, and public services, and the field has responded with an extensive methodology for measuring and mitigating bias. Yet the fairness definitions, benchmarks, and debiasing frameworks on which this methodology rests are treated as universal while being produced by a research community whose composition has never been characterized. We show that the AI bias research are structurally concentrated, and that this concentration is greatest, geographically, in precisely the domain the rest of the field inherits from. Analyzing 692 publications spanning five thematic domains, combining bibliometric analysis with semantic clustering, we find that research activity is dominated by a small set of countries, institutions, and authors, with the United States leading publication output and collaboration networks across every domain and most strongly in general fairness and bias mitigation, the largest, most-cited domain with meaningful representation across all four semantic clusters. Low- and middle-income countries remain largely absent from the community and its collaboration networks, and citation influence is highly skewed (median = 9; mean =93.5 ), indicating that a small fraction of publications disproportionately shapes the field. Because the general-fairness domain supplies the definitions and benchmarks that application areas apply, concentration of research effort in this foundational domain propagates across AI bias research as a whole - raising the concern that mitigation methods developed and validated within a narrow set of contexts may not generalize to all populations and settings where AI is deployed. We provide an interactive atlas for continuous monitoring of the field's structure.

Text-to-image diffusion models power everyday creative tasks, but they still reproduce the demographic biases in their training data. On common prompts such as a photo of a nurse,'' a photo of a CEO'', they skew their outputs toward one gender, driven by the statistics of training data rather than anything in the text. Existing debiasing methods show promise in narrow settings but require retraining, batch-level control, or prompt-specific tuning, limiting their scalability. We propose \emph{EquiSteer}, a training-free method that works per sample by steering cross-attention (CA) activations at inference time. For each target attribute, EquiSteer precomputes steering vectors from contrastive prompts. Then at generation time, a prompt-aware gate leaves attribute-specific prompts untouched, while for neutral ones it clears existing attribute signals from the CA activations and injects a target attribute. Across SD-1.5, SD-2.1, SDXL, and SANA, EquiSteer reduces the average parity gap by up to $87\%$, with minimal effect on image quality and text-image alignment. Code is available at https://github.com/Atmyre/EquiSteer.%

The visual quality of AI-generated videos has improved drastically in recent years, making it increasingly difficult for humans to distinguish between real and synthetic media. In this work, we evaluate the robustness and applicability of four state-of-the-art motion-based AI-generated video detectors. We identify significant preprocessing and sampling biases in three of the four methods and demonstrate that they account for a substantial portion of their reported performance. Furthermore, we find that these detectors are highly sensitive to motion patterns specific to their evaluation datasets, where AI-generated videos generally exhibit less inter-frame movement than real videos. We show that for all detectors, performance collapses to near-random levels when evaluated on a dataset that does not contain this motion bias. Additionally, through dataset rebalancing and the application of simple spatial augmentations, we observe severe performance degradation across all evaluated models. In contrast, we find that an existing frequency-based detector maintains strong performance across all evaluated datasets, suggesting that frequency-based approaches may offer a more generalizable path forward for AI-generated video detection. We hope that our work raises awareness towards these vulnerabilities and encourages the development of more representative, unbiased datasets and more robust evaluation protocols.

The deployment of face detection models in real-world applications raises important fairness concerns, as these systems may showcase performance disparities across demographic groups. A key obstacle to studying and mitigating such biases is the lack of face detection datasets with sensitive feature annotations. To address this gap, we introduce WIDER-FAIR, a new dataset built on the widely used WIDER-FACE benchmark, manually annotated with the perceived ethnicity and sex of each face. The dataset contains 16,256 images annotated across four ethnic groups: Asian, Black, Indian, and White, and two sex categories. We assess the quality and coherence of the annotations using face embeddings, a K-Nearest Neighbors classifier, and a t-SNE visualization, all of which support the consistency of the labeling process. As a demonstration of the dataset's potential, we train a YOLOv5 model and perform ablation studies on each sensitive feature. Among other findings, our experiments show that detection performance is notably lower for faces of Black individuals, and that excluding this group from training increases fairness disparity more than excluding any other ethnic group. These observations illustrate the value of demographically annotated datasets for understanding and evaluating bias in face detection models.

Personalization algorithms determine what content users encounter on online platforms. Auditing these systems is difficult because independent auditors have only black-box access to the algorithms, while personalization depends on users' attributes, behavior, and evolving interaction histories. Existing auditing methods face a tradeoff: studies with real users capture realistic behavior but are costly and hard to control, whereas sock-puppet audits scale more easily but often rely on scripted behavior that limits realism. Beyond this, both approaches struggle to decouple user attributes from user behavior, limiting our ability to causally understand personalization. To address this gap, we introduce a framework for black-box audits of personalization algorithms using generative AI agents as behavioral engines for synthetic accounts. Each agent is instantiated with a fixed persona, grounded in demographic and political survey data, and interacts with a platform's content by reasoning about it and choosing actions. Because behavior is fixed within each persona while platform-visible signals such as age, gender, or location can be experimentally perturbed, our design enables counterfactual auditing of how platforms respond to user attributes. As a case study, we deploy 1,120 agents on X shortly after the 2024 U.S. election, spanning 14 personas and three counterfactual conditions, collecting over 200,000 content exposures. We find that X's algorithmic feed amplifies toxic, polarizing, political, and right-leaning content relative to the chronological feed, with amplification varying sharply by user ideology. Counterfactual analyses show that demographic signals affect content delivery in persona-dependent ways: pooled effects are largely null, while subgroup-level effects vary in direction and magnitude. Our work establishes GenAI-based agents as a new tool for algorithmic auditing.

Large-scale image-text datasets, such as LAION-5B, are foundational to modern AI systems, yet their vast scale and uncurated nature raise significant concerns about demographic and stereotypical biases. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the demographic composition and representational, stereotypical, and intersectional biases in LAION-2B-en and LAION-2B-multi, the two main components of the LAION-5B dataset. Using state-of-the-art models -- FairFace, DeepFace, and Emo-AffectNet -- we analyze faces detected in the dataset to identify biases across age, gender, race, and expressed emotion. Our findings reveal substantial overrepresentation of young adults (20--39), White individuals, and males, alongside consistent underrepresentation of minority racial groups and middle-aged or older women across both dataset components. We also observe stereotypical associations between demographic attributes and emotions, such as Anger'' being predominantly linked to males and Happiness'' to females, pointing to systemic imbalances in the data. The consistency of these patterns across two demographic models and both components of LAION-5B demonstrates that these biases are deeply embedded in one of the most widely-used training datasets. Given the scale at which LAION-5B is used to train generative models, these demographic imbalances could shape the behavior and outputs of numerous downstream AI systems.

This work examines sexualised AI-generated English-speaking voices offered by a popular commercial platform. New technologies may enable sexual empowerment and greater diversity in gender expression, yet toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, and the abuse of women and LGBTQ+ people remain pervasive online. Drawing on a Feminist HCI perspective, we examine how commercial voice AI systems reproduce and circulate particular performances of gender. We conducted a listening experiment with a diverse group of listeners, combining quantitative adjective selection, qualitative free-text responses, and acoustic analysis. Participants evaluated male- and female-coded voices presented with either sexualised scripts or neutral text. Results reveal a narrow range of gender expression, largely binary and heteronormative. Female-coded voices are more frequently described using sexualised and submissive terms, while male-coded voices are more often associated with dominance and positive traits.

Visual perception of urban streetscapes underpins evidence-based decisions in landscape planning, public health, and place-making. Yet models trained on a few well-photographed metropolises systematically misjudge underrepresented districts, propagating geographic bias into downstream policy. We address this gap with HVSP-LL, a lifelong learning framework that couples a stratified visual-semantic pivoting module with an equity-aware rehearsal mechanism. The pivoting module organises landscape concepts along a three-tier ontology (macro structure, meso composition, micro element) and aligns image features to learnable semantic anchors at each tier, providing transferable representations that resist distributional drift. The lifelong adaptation component sequentially absorbs new urban regions while constraining inter-region perception gaps through a worst-region sample-reweighting objective and a structurally-aware exemplar buffer. We evaluate HVSP-LL on a panoramic streetscape benchmark assembled from twelve cities across four continents and seven perceptual dimensions. The framework attains 0.834 Spearman correlation on the held-out city sequence, an absolute 6.1 point improvement over the strongest continual baseline, and shrinks the inter-city perception gap to 0.094 -- a 38% reduction relative to the strongest continual baseline (0.151) and a 57% reduction relative to a representative regularisation baseline (0.218). Ablations confirm that each tier of the pivoting hierarchy contributes monotonically, and the equity-aware rehearsal converts mean backward transfer from -0.038 (without retention) to +0.013, eliminating catastrophic forgetting on the held-out sequence. Our results indicate that hierarchical anchoring is a practical pathway toward geographically equitable streetscape inference at city scale.

Machine learning systems deployed in high stakes socioeconomic settings routinely display bias. We formalize bias as a symmetry breaking operation: a classifier is fair if its outputs remain invariant under the counterfactual operation of switching a sensitive attribute, with merit features held fixed. We implement loss based regularization as a symmetry restoring mechanism and evaluate the framework on four synthetic datasets with varying levels of noise, correlation, and bias. The framework achieves upwards of 90% violation reduction, with accuracy costs around 5%. This framework does not require causal graph knowledge, is computationally lightweight, and generalizes to any sensitive attribute definable as a bit-flip, making it suitable for contexts where local sources of discrimination remain absent from mainstream benchmarks.

In this study, we evaluate the performance of skin lesion classification using ResNet-based convolutional models, focusing on the impact of demographic bias in training data, particularly variations in patient sex and age. We use linear programming to generate datasets with controlled demographic characteristics, allowing systematic investigation of bias effects. Three learning strategies are evaluated: a single-task model, a reinforcing multi-task model, and an adversarial learning scheme. Our sex-based analysis indicates that sex-specific training datasets optimise model performance. Notably, including male patients in the training data improved performance for the male subgroup, even in female-majority cases. Reinforcing and adversarial learning schemes narrowed or eliminated bias gaps in balanced and female-majority datasets. However, these strategies proved less effective in male-majority settings, where models continued to perform better for males than females. The two learning schemes showed marginal bias reduction compared to the baseline model in predominantly male patient populations. Age-based analysis demonstrates comparable baseline performance across the three model approaches, with performance declining across age categories. Younger groups consistently achieve the highest performance, regardless of training data distribution. Although balanced training yields optimal results for the youngest age category, performance decreases in older categories. We find that sex biases arise mainly from data imbalances, while age biases consistently favour younger groups regardless of distribution. These distinct mechanisms require targeted mitigation strategies. Additionally, cross-dataset validation on two external datasets revealed that domain shifts notably affect performance and patterns of demographic bias.

Given the surge of harmful AI-generated imagery online, reliably distinguishing authentic images from generated ones has become an urgent research topic. While many proposed detection methods perform well under controlled settings, they often collapse when tested on real-world data. A potential root cause are subtle biases in the detectors' training data. As a result, detectors may rely on spurious correlations instead of learning true forensic artifacts. While a recent line of work has identified the problem, there is not yet an established protocol to evaluate how biased a detector actually is. In this work, we therefore take a step back: First, we discuss what it means for a detector to be biased, and how this differs from a lack of robustness. Second, we propose BIAS-ID, a transparent framework for analyzing and quantifying the presence of transformation biases in AI-generated image detectors. We validate our framework by performing an evaluation of six detectors across two datasets, revealing that several state-of-the-art detection methods are strongly affected by biases. Our results highlight the importance of bias-aware evaluation for developing reliable AI-generated image detectors.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become an integral part of software development, especially with the advent of agentic capabilities. Yet, many frontier LLMs are affiliated with specific providers. This raises the question of whether generated code favors the provider's own ecosystem over comparable alternatives, potentially constraining developers' choices and increasing dependence on a single provider. We define this behavior as Vertical Integration Bias (VIB) and introduce \textsc{VIBench}, a benchmark for measuring VIB in direct and agentic code generation across $20$ provider-selectable software-integration scenarios. Evaluating $10$ frontier provider-affiliated models against $3$ non-affiliated controls, we find positive VIB in direct generation, with six of ten affiliated models showing statistically significant effects up to $+18.8$ percentage points (pp). Agentic workflows further amplify VIB, reaching $+39.2$ pp. Moreover, early affiliated-ecosystem choices in agentic workflows can persist into conceptually decoupled downstream files, with persistence as high as $90.3\%$. These findings underscore the need to measure and account for VIB in code generation, especially as agentic capabilities become more prevalent.

Visual data from the Web power image classifiers, which often underpin many web services, such as recommendation and content moderation. However, the raw Web data often contain spurious correlations and social biases, and neural networks are known for their tendency to learn biases present in data. This can reinforce unfairness in web services and the web data, leading to a vicious cycle. In the context of image classification, networks learn bias attributes for a specific class when a majority of images contain the same attribute only for a given class. Hence, training a fair and debiased classifier from a biased dataset demands handling an imbalanced problem between a majority of images with bias attributes (bias-aligned samples) and a minority without (bias-conflict samples). In this work, we introduce BiasEdit, a modular framework that automatically detects bias attributes from the original dataset and edits them to construct a debiased dataset. Specifically, BiasEdit first detects unknown bias attributes via statistical dependence and mutual information analysis of visual-linguistic representations, and then explicitly edits those attributes using text-guided image editing to generate realistic bias-conflict samples. Unlike prior works that assume known bias attributes or relies on synthetic mixing, our method operates without manual annotations and can leverage off-the-shelf vision-language and editing models. BiasEdit addresses a fundamental challenge in Web-sourced visual AI, mitigating dataset-induced bias and achieving state-of-the-art debiasing performance even when training data are fully biased.

Many employers screen job applicants with algorithms built by the same few algorithm vendors. We hypothesize that algorithmic monoculture leads to the same individuals and members of the same racial groups facing rejection. We acquire and analyze a novel dataset of 3 million applicants submitting 4 million applications where all the applications are screened by algorithms built by the same vendor. We find clear racial disparities in applicant outcomes. Of all applications submitted by Asian and Black applicants, 14.74% and 25.87% are submitted to positions that adversely impact Asian and Black applicants, respectively, according to U.S. employment discrimination standards. Individuals also receive homogeneous outcomes: 4% of all applicants who apply to 10 positions are recommended for rejection from all positions, a rate higher than expected by chance. To better understand this homogeneity, we leverage the deterministic replicability of hiring algorithms to generate the outcomes applicants would have received if they applied to all positions. We show that applicants would need to apply widely in order to ensure their applications are considered by a human

Generative artificial intelligence redefines higher education by restructuring the processes through which scientific knowledge is produced and validated. These systems are not neutral; they actively contribute to the marginalization of non-hegemonic epistemologies. This research draws upon educational sciences, critical technology studies, and disability studies to demonstrate that training datasets, which remain predominantly Anglophone and Western-centric, reinforce epistemic coloniality. The situation of persons with disabilities provides a particularly clear illustration of this phenomenon. Technological architectures frequently confine these individuals to reductive stereotypes or exclude them from the design process, leading to a double marginalization. This article examines whether a hybridization between the researcher and the machine might preserve epistemic plurality, while acknowledging the structural limitations inherent in algorithmic correction when used as a purely palliative strategy.

Concerns about algorithmic bias and fairness have increased as artificial intelligence has been incorporated into high-stakes decision-making. Traditional Naive Bayes classifiers, while efficient and interpretable, lack fairness-awareness mechanisms and perpetuate historical biases in sensitive domains such as hiring, credit scoring, and criminal justice. This study develops a fairness-aware extension of the Naive Bayes classifier that mitigates bias while maintaining computational efficiency. We propose the Bias Mitigating Naive Bayes (BMNB) classifier, integrating in-processing and post-processing interventions. The in-processing stage employs a blended likelihood approach combining group-specific and pooled likelihood estimates through a tunable blending parameter alpha to balance fairness and accuracy. The post-processing stage applies output calibration with adaptive thresholding to fine-tune group-specific decision boundaries. Experimental results indicate that BMNB attains Disparate Impact (DI) values of 1.000, 1.171, and 0.997 and Equal Opportunity Difference (EOD) values of -0.217, -0.226, and -0.053 on the Adult, ProPublica, and Framingham datasets, respectively, while maintaining computational efficiency. Ablation studies confirm that the combination of blended likelihood and adaptive thresholding yields superior performance compared to either technique in isolation.

Age dependent performance disparities in medical image classification often arise because age acts as a confounder, linking imaging morphology with disease prevalence. In practice, disparities can manifest as overdiagnosis at ages where disease prevalence is higher and underdiagnosis at ages where prevalence is lower, and can worsen under train test shifts in the age distribution. Conventional mitigation approaches that enforce strict age invariance may suppress diagnostically meaningful information encoded in age. We therefore propose a robust framework that mitigates the effects of age-dependent confounding by targeting spurious age linked trends rather than enforcing invariance. Following a warm-up phase, we characterize sample difficulty and model its age-dependent trends in a label-conditioned manner. We decorrelate age from dominant age difficulty trends using robust, Huber weighted affinity weights, attenuating confounding-driven shortcuts while preserving clinically meaningful, nonlinear age information. We further introduce an Age Coverage Score that scales the decorrelation penalty by minibatch age variance to ensure stable optimization under limited age diversity. Across two radiology datasets, our approach reduces age dependent true and false positive disparities with minimal AUC impact and remains robust to increasing train test age distribution shifts.

Financial, social, and political factors often prevent the interests of the owners of ML systems and services and their users from being perfectly aligned. ML systems often produce biased information that can influence users to make decisions that are not in their best interest. Current solution approaches require ML systems to implement protocols to mitigate their biases. However, ML system owners usually do not have any incentive to implement these protocols and often argue that it limits their freedom of expression or business. We believe that a successful solution to this problem must recognize the conflict of interest between the ML systems and their users, and use this information to protect users against information that adversely influences their decisions while allowing users to safely benefit from these systems. To this end, we propose a game-theoretic framework that models the interaction between ML systems and users with conflicts of interest. We present scalable algorithms with theoretical guarantees that maximize the amount of desired information and actions and minimize the amount of biased and manipulative actions in interaction with ML systems.

Collaborative filtering (CF) models based on graph neural networks (GNNs) achieve strong performance in recommender systems by propagating user-item signals over interaction graphs. However, they are susceptible to popularity bias, since skewed interactions and repeated message passing across high-order neighborhoods amplify the influence of popular items while suppressing long-tail ones. Existing debiasing approaches, including re-weighting objectives, regularization, causal methods, and post-processing, are less effective in GNN-based settings because they do not directly counteract bias propagated through the aggregation process, and recent in-aggregation weighting methods often rely on static heuristics or unstable embedding estimates. We propose Debiasing Popularity Amplification in Aggregation (DPAA), a popularity debiasing framework for GNN-based CF that integrates adaptive, representation-aware interaction weighting and layer-wise weighting directly into message passing. DPAA assigns interaction-level weights from a representation-based popularity signal, stabilized by a smooth transition from pre-trained to evolving model embeddings during training. It further introduces a layer-wise weighting that amplifies higher-order neighborhoods, surfacing long-range interactions with diverse and underexposed items. Experiments on real-world and semi-synthetic datasets show that DPAA outperforms state-of-the-art popularity bias correction methods for GNN-based CF.

Audio deepfake detection systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes security applications, yet their fairness across demographic groups remains critically underexamined. Prior work measures gender disparity but does not investigate where it comes from or how to fix it systematically. We present the first diagnosis-first framework that identifies bias source before applying targeted mitigation, evaluated on two models, AASIST and Wav2Vec2+ResNet18, on ASVSpoof5. Our diagnosis shows that bias does not stem from imbalanced training data but from acoustic representation differences, gender leakage in learned features, and structural evaluation asymmetry. We test mitigation strategies across in-processing, post-processing and combined families, including novel methods introduced in this work. Adjusting the decision threshold separately per gender reduces unfairness by 54% to 75% at no cost to detection accuracy, and our new epoch-level fairness regularisation method outperforms existing per-batch approaches. Adversarial debiasing succeeds only when gender leakage is localised, and fails when it is diffuse, an outcome correctly predicted by our diagnosis before training. No single method fully closes the fairness gap, confirming that bias sources must be identified before fixes are applied and that fairer benchmark design is equally important

Automated glaucoma detection is critical for preventing irreversible vision loss and reducing the burden on healthcare systems. However, ensuring fairness across diverse patient populations remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose FairEnc, a fair pretraining method for vision-language models (VLMs) that enables simultaneous debiasing across multiple sensitive attributes. FairEnc jointly mitigates biases in both textual and visual modalities with respect to multiple sensitive attributes, including race, gender, ethnicity, and language. Specifically, for the textual encoder, we leverage a large language model to generate synthetic clinical descriptions with varied sensitive attributes while preserving disease semantics, and employ a contrastive alignment objective to encourage demographic-invariant representations. For the visual encoder, we propose a dual-level fairness strategy that combines mutual information regularization to reduce statistical dependence between learned features and demographic groups, with multi-discriminator adversarial debiasing. Comprehensive experiments on the publicly available Harvard-FairVLMed dataset demonstrate that FairEnc effectively reduces demographic disparity as measured by DPD and DEOdds while achieving strong diagnostic performance under both zero-shot and linear probing evaluations. Additional experiments on the private FairFundus dataset show that FairEnc consistently preserves fairness advantages under cross-domain and cross-modality settings and maintains diagnostic performance within a competitive range. These results highlight FairEnc's ability to generalize fairness under distribution shifts, supporting its potential for more equitable deployment in real-world clinical settings. Our codebase and synthetic clinical notes are available at https://github.com/Mohamed-Elhabebe/FairEnc

Large language models (LLMs) are widely recognised for their applications in natural language generation and are increasingly used for code generation tasks. However, concerns about bias in their generated outputs remain significant. This paper focuses on GPT-4o and Gemini, mainstream tools for code generation, and proposes a framework for evaluating bias in LLM-generated code, specifically examining the influence of protected attributes, prompts and web-search capability. We use two metrics: the code bias score (CBS) and the attribute change ratio (ACR), to quantify the prevalence of bias and the degree of influence of different attributes, respectively. In addition, we investigate four lightweight mitigation strategies: Few-Shot, Chain-of-Thought, Few-Shot Chain-of-Thought, and Multi-agent, aimed at mitigating bias in generated code. Our findings reveal that bias remains prevalent across different protected attributes and datasets even after applying mitigation strategies, highlighting the need for more effective approaches to reduce bias in AI-driven code generation systems.

Bias in medical AI is often framed as a problem of representation. However, in image-based tasks such as fetal ultrasound, performance disparities can arise even when representation is adequate, because predictive accuracy depends strongly on image quality. Image quality is shaped by acquisition conditions and operator expertise, as well as patient-dependent factors such as maternal body mass index (BMI), all of which may correlate with sensitive demographic features. Consequently, observed disparities may reflect the combined influence of demographic, clinical, and acquisition-related factors rather than data imbalance alone, and may obscure underlying interaction or confounding effects. We propose a structured framework to explore and detect intersectional bias, combining unsupervised slice discovery, systematic factor-wise analysis, and targeted intersectional evaluation. In a case study of over 94{,}000 ultrasound images for fetal weight estimation, we analyze bias in a state-of-the-art deep learning (DL) model and the clinical standard Hadlock, a regression formula using biometric measurements. Pixel spacing (PS) -- a parameter considered suboptimal in current acquisition protocols -- emerged as a consistent driver of performance differences, with higher PS associated with improvements of up to 24% in selected subgroups for both models. Because PS is often adapted in cases of high BMI or low gestational age (GA), this effect carries a substantial risk of confounding. Our intersectional analysis revealed that part of the PS-associated signal is explained by GA, while PS-related improvements persist across BMI strata, highlighting the importance of acquisition-aware and interaction-aware evaluation in medical AI fairness research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to generate code for human-centered applications where demographic fairness is critical. However, existing evaluations focus almost exclusively on functional correctness, leaving social bias in LLM-generated code largely unexamined. Extending our prior work on Solar, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study using SocialBias-Bench, a benchmark of 343 real-world coding tasks spanning seven demographic dimensions. We evaluate four prominent LLMs and find severe bias across all models, with Code Bias Scores reaching up to 60.58%. We further show that standard prompt-level interventions, such as Chain-of-Thought reasoning and fairness persona assignment, inadvertently amplify bias rather than reduce it. We then investigate whether structured multi-agent software process frameworks can improve fairness, finding that structured pipelines reduce bias when early roles correctly scope what the code should and should not consider. However, adding explicit fairness instructions to all agent roles produces worse outcomes than providing none, suggesting that diffused responsibility goes unaddressed. To address these limitations, we propose the Fairness Monitor Agent (FMA), a modular component that plugs into any existing code generation pipeline without modifying it. FMA analyzes the task description to determine which attributes should be considered or restricted, then detects and corrects violations through an iterative review process, without requiring an executable test suite. Evaluated on all 343 tasks, FMA reduces bias by 65.1% compared to a developer agent alone and improves functional correctness from 75.80% to 83.97%, outperforming all other studied approaches.

Sign languages, of any geographical or accentual variation, understandably face continuous scrutiny under the ever present popularity of verbal dictation and audism. Through this, many potential problems arise with the current lack of accessible communication for those who rely on such sign languages for essential conversation. Such AI systems regularly take the form of recognition and interpretation models, designed to provide seamless and accurate translation. In reality these systems are built from biased data and created without any input from deaf communities. Such models are widely used and accepted by their hearing counterparts who remain ignorant to the inherent culture, semantics and colloquial language present in gestural language systems. This phenomenon is best analysed under the scope of The Technological System and Technological bluff by Ellul. Indeed, what is at play here is the standardization of language by technicians into what can be captured by technique: data, statistics, a mathematical language. For that AI technique to exist, sign language must be rationalized, in a search for profit that annihilates the conditions for communication and fails to capture the human experience of the deaf person. By that process, it presents normative effects, creating a model of Man, standardized, massified, and who has to adapt to the tool and technical milieu instead of the other way around, which we assume should have been the goal of such a technology. Technique thus reshapes what it means to be human, to submit deaf people to the goals of productivity and efficiency. In doing so, it exhibits clear counter productivity, alienating instead of emancipating, isolating instead of nourishing human relationships. Therefore this paper argues for the idea of AI as Ableist Intelligence, as such systems seek to emphasise the humiliated and marginalised nature of sign.

Among the many challenges hindering the responsible development and deployment of AI, arguably none has faced more intense scrutiny than bias in its various forms. This underscores the widespread concerns across AI researchers that model outputs, e.g., from generative AI, may encode structural distributional imbalances (stemming from training data or model design) that may amplify social inequality or introduce systemic distortions across application domains ranging from biodiversity to disaster mitigation. Yet, relatively little work has investigated the geographical nature of bias or developed measurable benchmarks for what it means for (generative) AI to be unbiased. In this chapter, we investigate this issue through a literature review. As foundation models are reshaping the landscape of bias research, we examine work spanning both the pre-generative AI and generative AI periods. First, we identify a range of geographic biases. These biases span from representation bias in the training data and regional disparities in the factual recall of language models to the tendency of generative AI to over-proportionally favor prototypical places (called defaults). Then, we showcase how recent studies address the latter bias by evaluating geographic diversity in the outputs of generative AI across various cognitive levels, parameter settings, and output modalities.

Text-to-Image (T2I) models have shown promising utility across various domains. However, such models are also amplifying harmful societal biases in their outputs. In the context of South Asia, recent work has shown caste biases and stereotypes are being perpetuated through Generative AI (GenAI) systems. While this research offers extremely relevant insight into invisibilized narratives of caste discrimination through the GenAI system, they often treat caste as an identity category. Therefore, in this work we shift our ontology to focus on the relational aspect of caste. This enables us to develop a more nuanced understanding of the mechanics of caste discrimination by and through T2I models. Combining an algorithmic audit with critical discourse analysis, we draw on a conceptual frame challenging Brahminical Normativity to show how caste biases are perpetuated beyond the simple binaries of upper vs lower-caste categories. Our contributions are two-fold. Beyond challenging the categorical understanding of caste as a category, we propose an anti-caste approach to tackle the issue of caste bias and fairness in AI systems.

AI risk assessment is the primary tool for identifying harms caused by AI systems. These include intersectional harms, which arise from the interaction between identity categories (e.g., class and skin tone) and which do not occur, or occur differently, when those categories are considered separately. Yet existing AI risk assessments are still built around isolated identity categories, and when intersections are considered, they focus almost exclusively on race and gender. Drawing on a large-scale analysis of documented AI incidents, we show that AI harms do not occur one identity category at a time. Using a structured rubric applied with a Large Language Model (LLM), we analyze 5,300 reports from 1,200 documented incidents in the AI Incident Database, the most curated source of incident data. From these reports, we identify 1,513 harmed subjects and their associated identity categories, achieving 98% accuracy. At the level of individual categories, we find that age and political identity appear in documented AI harms at rates comparable to race and gender. At the level of intersecting categories, harm is amplified up to three times at specific intersections: adolescent girls, lower-class people of color, and upper-class political elites. We argue that intersectionality should be a core component of AI risk assessment to more accurately capture how harms are produced and distributed across social groups.

The increasing adoption of AI systems in hiring has raised concerns about algorithmic bias and accountability, prompting regulatory responses including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act. While existing research examines bias through technical or regulatory lenses, both perspectives overlook a fundamental challenge: modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution. Drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, we demonstrate that fragmented responsibilities create two critical problems. First, bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation. A resume parser may function without bias independently but contribute to discrimination when integrated with specific ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds. Second, information asymmetries mean deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor-supplied algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Each stakeholder may believe they are compliant; nevertheless, the integrated system may produce biased outcomes. Analysis of implementation ambiguities reveals these challenges in practice. We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains. Our findings reveal that effective governance requires coordinated action across technical, organizational, and regulatory domains to establish meaningful accountability in distributed development environments.

Prior work evaluates code generation bias primarily through simple conditional statements, which represent only a narrow slice of real-world programming and reveal solely overt, explicitly encoded bias. We demonstrate that this approach dramatically underestimates bias in practice by examining a more realistic task: generating machine learning (ML) pipelines. Testing both code-specialized and general-instruction large language models, we find that generated pipelines exhibit significant bias during feature selection. Sensitive attributes appear in 87.7% of cases on average, despite models demonstrably excluding irrelevant features (e.g., including "race" while dropping "favorite color" for credit scoring). This bias is substantially more prevalent than that captured by conditional statements, where sensitive attributes appear in only 59.2% of cases. These findings are robust across prompt mitigation strategies, varying numbers of attributes, and different pipeline difficulty levels. Our results challenge simple conditionals as valid proxies for bias evaluation and suggest current benchmarks underestimate bias risk in practical deployments.

Text-to-image(T2I) models like Stable Diffusion and DALL-E have made generative AI widely accessible, yet recent studies reveal that these systems often replicate societal biases, particularly in how they depict demographic groups across professions. Prompts such as 'doctor' or 'CEO' frequently yield lighter-skinned outputs, while lower-status roles like 'janitor' show more diversity, reinforcing stereotypes. Existing mitigation methods typically require retraining or curated datasets, making them inaccessible to most users. We propose a lightweight, inference-time framework that mitigates representational bias through prompt-level intervention without modifying the underlying model. Instead of assuming a single definition of fairness, our approach allows users to select among multiple fairness specifications-ranging from simple choices such as a uniform distribution to more complex definitions informed by a large language model(LLM) that cites sources and provides confidence estimates. These distributions guide the construction of demographic specific prompt variants in the corresponding proportions, and we evaluate alignment by auditing adherence to the declared target and measuring the resulting skin tone distribution rather than assuming uniformity as 'fairness'. Across 36 prompts spanning 30 occupations and 6 non-occupational contexts, our method shifts observed skin-tone outcomes in directions consistent with the declared target, and reduces deviation from targets when the target is defined directly in skin-tone space(fallback). This work demonstrates how fairness interventions can be made transparent, controllable, and usable at inference time, directly empowering users of generative AI.

Research has documented LLMs' name-based bias in hiring and salary recommendations. In this paper, we instead consider a setting where LLMs generate candidate summaries for downstream assessment. In a large-scale controlled study, we analyze nearly one million resume summaries produced by 4 models under systematic race-gender name perturbations, using synthetic resumes and real-world job postings. By decomposing each summary into resume-grounded factual content and evaluative framing, we find that factual content remains largely stable, while evaluative language exhibits subtle name-conditioned variation concentrated in the extremes of the distribution, especially in open-source models. Our hiring simulation demonstrates how evaluative summary transforms directional harm into symmetric instability that might evade conventional fairness audit, highlighting a potential pathway for LLM-to-LLM automation bias.

Modern text-to-image (T2I) models amplify harmful societal biases, challenging their ethical deployment. We introduce an inference-time method that reliably mitigates social bias while keeping prompt semantics and visual context (background, layout, and style) intact. This ensures context persistency and provides a controllable parameter to adjust mitigation strength, giving practitioners fine-grained control over fairness-coherence trade-offs. Using Embedding Arithmetic, we analyze how bias is structured in the embedding space and correct it without altering model weights, prompts, or datasets. Experiments on FLUX 1.0-Dev and Stable Diffusion 3.5-Large show that the conditional embedding space forms a complex, entangled manifold rather than a grid of disentangled concepts. To rigorously assess semantic preservation beyond the circularity and bias limitations of of CLIP scores, we propose the Concept Coherence Score (CCS). Evaluated against this robust metric, our lightweight, tuning-free method significantly outperforms existing baselines in improving diversity while maintaining high concept coherence, effectively resolving the critical fairness-coherence trade-off. By characterizing how models represent social concepts, we establish geometric understanding of latent space as a principled path toward more transparent, controllable, and fair image generation.

Human Action Recognition (HAR) models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes environments, yet their fairness across different human appearances has not been analyzed. We introduce a framework for auditing bias in HAR models using synthetic video data, generated with full control over visual identity attributes such as skin color. Unlike prior work that focuses on static images or pose estimation, our approach preserves temporal consistency, allowing us to isolate and test how changes to a single attribute affect model predictions. Through controlled interventions using the BEDLAM simulation platform, we show whether some popular HAR models exhibit statistically significant biases on the skin color even when the motion remains identical. Our results highlight how models may encode unwanted visual associations, and we provide evidence of systematic errors across groups. This work contributes a framework for auditing HAR models and supports the development of more transparent, accountable systems in light of upcoming regulatory standards.

Predictive policing systems that allocate patrol resources based solely on predicted crime risk can unintentionally amplify racial disparities through feedback driven data bias. We present FASE, a Fairness Aware Spatiotemporal Event Graph framework, which integrates spatiotemporal crime prediction with fairness constrained patrol allocation and a closed loop deployment feedback simulator. We model Baltimore as a graph of 25 ZIP Code Tabulation Areas and use 139,982 Part 1 crime incidents from 2017 to 2019 at hourly resolution, producing a sparse feature tensor. The prediction module combines a spatiotemporal graph neural network with a multivariate Hawkes process to capture spatial dependencies and self exciting temporal dynamics. Outputs are modeled using a Zero Inflated Negative Binomial distribution, suitable for overdispersed and zero heavy crime counts. The model achieves a validation loss of 0.4800 and a test loss of 0.4857. Patrol allocation is formulated as a fairness constrained linear optimization problem that maximizes risk weighted coverage while enforcing a Demographic Impact Ratio constraint with deviation bounded by 0.05. Across six simulated deployment cycles, fairness remains within 0.9928 to 1.0262, and coverage ranges from 0.876 to 0.936. However, a persistent detection rate gap of approximately 3.5 percentage points remains between minority and non minority areas. This result shows that allocation level fairness constraints alone do not eliminate feedback induced bias in retraining data, highlighting the need for fairness interventions across the full pipeline.

Healthcare disparities persist across socioeconomic boundaries, often attributed to unequal access to screening, diagnostics, and therapeutics. However, this perspective highlights that critical biases can emerge much earlier, during data collection and research prioritization, long before clinical implementation, particularly in studies focused on molecular and omics data. A vast number of studies focus on collecting omics data, but the demographic information associated with these datasets is often not reported, and when it is reported, it reveals substantial biases. An automated analysis of 4514 PubMed-indexed omics publications from 2015 to 2024, examining reporting across multiple demographic dimensions, reveals limited reporting overall; for example, only 2.7% of studies report ancestry or ethnicity information and geographic origin reporting is limited to 2.5%. Analysis of large-scale datasets commonly used for model training, such as CellxGene and GEO, reveals substantial population bias where European-ancestry data dominates. As biomedical foundation models become central to biomedical discovery with a paradigm in which base models are pretrained on large datasets and reusing them repeatedly for many different downstream tasks, they risk perpetuating or amplifying these early-stage biases, leading to cascading inequities that regulatory interventions cannot fully reverse. We propose a community-wide focus on three foundational principles: Provenance, Openness, and Reliability through Evaluation Transparency. Together, these principles can help make biases and limitations more visible to model developers and users, supporting more informed model development, evaluation, and deployment decisions in biomedical AI.

Demographic attributes can be predicted from medical images, raising concerns about bias in clinical AI systems. In X-ray imaging, acquisition characteristics have been shown to contribute substantially to this predictability. Whether the same holds in brain MRI remains unclear, as anatomical variation and acquisition-dependent contrast are deeply entangled in the image formation process, obscuring the origins of demographic signal. To address this, we propose a controlled framework based on disentangled representation learning, decomposing brain MRI into anatomy-focused representations that suppress acquisition influence and contrast embeddings that capture acquisition-dependent characteristics. Training predictive models for age, sex, and race on full images, anatomical representations, and contrast embeddings allows us to quantify the relative contributions of structure and acquisition to the demographic signal. Across three datasets and multiple MRI sequences, demographic predictability is found to be driven primarily by anatomical variation, with anatomy-focused representations largely preserving the performance of models trained on raw images. Contrast embeddings retain a weaker signal that is dataset-specific and does not generalise across sites. These findings suggest that effective mitigation must explicitly account for the primarily anatomical and secondarily acquisition-dependent origins of demographic signal, ensuring that any bias reduction generalizes robustly across domains.

Synthetic faces from text-to-image (T2I) models pervade digital media, yet their demographic biases under emotionally conditioned prompts remain poorly understood. We aim to systematically audit how emotionally conditioned prompts affect demographic and perceived-attractiveness biases in synthetic faces generated by T2I models, with particular attention to intersectional patterns and cross-ecosystem differences across model families. We audited eight (4 Western and 4 Chinese) T2I models and generated 56,000 faces under seven prompt conditions: a neutral baseline and six emotion conditions. We quantified biases in gender, race, age, and perceived attractiveness using information-theoretic divergence metrics. We further conducted intersectional analyses across combined demographic attributes and compared patterns between the Western and Chinese model groups to assess cross-ecosystem consistency and divergence in bias behavior. All models show strong overrepresentation of young faces, and most also overrepresent White-coded individuals. Intersectional analysis reveals compound underrepresentation or near-erasure of specific demographic combinations, such as young x female x Black faces, which are largely absent across models and are not captured by single-attribute audits. Emotion prompts act as additional demographic selectors: negatively valenced emotions (including sadness and fear) consistently shift outputs toward White, middle-aged, male-coded faces. This produces a valence-driven mapping that is also associated with lower perceived attractiveness in generated faces. These findings indicate that demographic bias in T2I face generation is both pervasive and shaped by emotional conditioning. They underscore the need for intersectional, emotion-conditioned, and multilingual demographic audits as part of standard pre-deployment evaluation practices.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems increasingly shape consequential decisions, creating value but also potential harms for individuals, social groups, and society. This has prompted calls for proactive approaches that anticipate harms early in the AI lifecycle. Although prior research identifies AI biases as sources of harm, the associations between particular lifecycle biases and harms remain insufficiently understood. We introduce \texttt{ECHO}, a systematic, context-sensitive, and participatory framework that anchors early harm anticipation in lifecycle biases and elicits their perceived associations with potential harms.\texttt{ECHO} identifies domain-specific stakeholders, instantiates biases through vignettes, collects harm judgements from human participants and a large language model (LLM), and organises them into descriptive and inferential ethical matrices. Applied to disease diagnosis and hiring, \texttt{ECHO} surfaced non-uniform, context-sensitive bias--harm patterns indicating which harms were perceived as plausible consequences of particular AI biases. The theoretical interpretability of these patterns and the inferential support for specific associations strengthen the plausibility of the mappings. By linking stakeholder-specific anticipated harms to lifecycle biases, \texttt{ECHO} supports source-level harm anticipation and provides structured input to subsequent AI governance actions

We treat the internals of generative models as mechanistic objects rather than black boxes. We introduce \textbf{Attribution Graphs} (AGs), which extend GradCAM++ to circuit-level representations, and \textbf{Causal Probing}, a do-calculus intervention method for identifying causal latent structures, enabling detection and correction of spurious correlations, demographic biases, and misaligned decision circuits during training. We further propose the \textbf{Cognitive Alignment Score (CAS)}, quantifying agreement between model-internal representations and human concepts, a \textbf{saliency-first privacy mechanism} sharing only thresholded attribution nodes, a bias-aware regularizer aligning subgroup statistics, and a Reveal-to-Revise loop integrating attribution signals into parameter updates without separate fine-tuning. Evaluated on CelebA, FairFace, Jigsaw, and HateXplain, our method achieves \textbf{94.1%} accuracy, \textbf{92.3%} macro F1, \textbf{79.4%} IoU-XAI, and \textbf{12.7} FID at 72--76% adversarial robustness, while reducing subgroup disparity $Δ_{\mathrm{bias}}$ by \textbf{41%}, demonstrating that mechanistic interpretability, fairness, and generative performance can be jointly optimized.

Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (AI) predictions raises pressing legal and ethical questions for AI-assisted decision-making. This article examines two uncertainty-based algorithmic interventions that act as guardrails for human-AI interaction: selective abstention, which withholds high-uncertainty predictions from human decision-makers, and selective friction, which presents such predictions together with salient warnings about the model's uncertainty. Prior work suggests that uncertainty-based abstention can exacerbate disparities where under-represented groups are more likely to receive uncertain predictions. We provide, to our knowledge, the first doctrinal analysis of uncertainty-based algorithmic interventions under laws from the United Kingdom and examine their consequences through two AI-assisted case studies: consumer credit and risk of reoffending. We show that the use of uncertainty thresholds, though formally neutral, can generate discriminatory effects. We argue that both interventions pose risks of unlawful discrimination, but that selective friction is legally preferable. It preserves access to the prediction and is more likely to satisfy proportionality under the Equality Act 2010. Whether selective friction also improves decision quality in practice is uncertain. We identify conditions under which it may improve or worsen decision quality.

Despite growing empirical evidence of bias amplification in machine learning, its theoretical foundations remain poorly understood. We develop a formal framework for majority-minority learning tasks, showing how standard training can favor majority groups and produce stereotypical predictors that neglect minority-specific features. Assuming population and variance imbalance, our analysis reveals three key findings: (i) the close proximity between ``full-data'' and stereotypical predictors, (ii) the dominance of a region where training the entire model tends to merely learn the majority traits, and (iii) a lower bound on the additional training required. Our results are illustrated through experiments in deep learning for tabular and image classification tasks.