Demographics

We introduce the Illinois Social Attitudes Aggregate Corpus (ISAAC), an open, modular, and accessible corpus of 527 million+ English-language Reddit posts selected for relevance to six key social group distinctions based on race, sexuality, age, ability, body weight, and skin tone, covering the 17-year period from 2007 to 2023. A multi-step, human-audited filtering pipeline was used to keep irrelevant content in the curated dataset below 10%, both overall and for each social group distinction. Each post was then algorithmically annotated with the user's estimated home region, along with a suite of validated off-the-shelf and custom semantic labels including moralization, sentiment, emotion, and linguistic generalization. We confirm the validity of the resulting corpus through convergent evidence linking ISAAC to macro-level societal trends, such as online search behavior, temporal spikes during major societal events (both nationally and regionally), and long-term shifts in public attitudes. By offering a unified, public infrastructure, ISAAC eliminates research fragmentation and enables seamless replication while supporting diverse empirical workflows at scale. Specifically, ISAAC allows investigators to perform cross-category comparisons, conduct high-precision tracking of long-term temporal shifts in social group discourse, and map spatial variation onto localized public opinion and policy outcomes. ISAAC's fully public, modular pipeline facilitates easy extension of the corpus to new platforms, languages, and social categories. To accommodate various research needs, ISAAC is accessible both without coding through a point-and-click website and labeler web-apps, and programmatically via an SQL playground, a Python package, and HuggingFace.

Small clinical tabular datasets require interpretable machine learning because deep learning is often impractical and ensemble models can be difficult to inspect. A key pitfall is that statistical significance does not necessarily imply predictive utility. Using data from the Panama Aging Research Initiative--Health Disparities (PARI-HD) cohort (n=165), we implemented a leakage-safe threshold-likelihood Bernoulli/Categorical Naive Bayes (BNB/CNB) classifier. Within every training fold, each continuous predictor was reduced to a supervised chi-square-derived state, while income entered the model through a categorical likelihood. All data-dependent steps were performed within repeated stratified 10-fold cross-validation with 30 repeats. The demographic baseline achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.630 +/- 0.017. I-309 (CCL1) was the dominant incremental feature, increasing AUC by 0.110, with paired DeLong tests yielding p<0.05 in 100% of repeats. In the pre-specified primary analysis, I-309 produced a fixed-partition DeLong p=0.0018, with robustness assessed across 200 random partitions, where the median p-value was 0.0011. Within the exploratory family of 18 candidate markers, I-309 achieved a Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted q=0.032 on the frozen partition and satisfied q<0.05 in 85% of random partitions, whereas no other marker demonstrated reliable incremental predictive value. Because the fitted model is an inspectable table of thresholds and class-conditional probabilities, these results identify I-309/CCL1 as an interpretable candidate feature for tabular prediction of cognitive impairment, pending external validation.

Large Language Models are now common in student assessment, but we know little about how student demographics affect their use. Sometimes, considering student demographics may be necessary -- for example, to improve readability for users with lower educational levels. However, it also risks being a cause of discrimination, e.g., when assigning lower scores to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We set up controlled prompts to test 1) explicit demographic effects, where we mention demographic details directly, and 2) implicit effects, where we use conversation history as a demographic signal. We test these settings in three tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Formative Feedback, and Metalinguistic Question Answering. We test six state-of-the-art LLMs on these tasks. In both explicit and implicit cases, the models pick up on demographic cues and can change their scoring, feedback, and answers accordingly. We find that LLMs frequently adjust the readability of feedback to education levels when these are explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, implicit conditions produce unpredictable biases, such as in question answering, where responses from lower-education levels receive lower sentiment scores. Our results provide clear evidence of demographic sensitivity in LLMs for educational assessment tasks.

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.

Travel survey data are essential for transportation planning and travel behavior analysis, yet collecting large-scale representative samples is costly and time-consuming. A practical alternative is to generate synthetic survey records from a few-shot sample. However, such samples provide incomplete coverage of heterogeneous traveler groups and insufficient evidence for recovering the complex dependencies between demographic characteristics and travel behavior. Existing approaches have complementary limitations. Probabilistic generative models such as Bayesian networks (BNs) offer explicit distributional control, but structures learned from few-shot samples may omit meaningful dependencies or retain spurious ones. Large language models (LLMs) can help address these difficulties in BN structure learning by providing behavioral knowledge that complements the limited statistical evidence. We therefore propose LEBGen, an LLM-enhanced BN framework that uses this knowledge to refine network structure for few-shot travel survey data generation. Specifically, the LLM first identifies traveler personas from demographic attribute and travel behavior statistics, then recovers dependencies missed by the persona-augmented BN structure and prune spurious ones. The refined BN is parameterized exclusively from the observed data to generate synthetic records. Under a 2% few-shot setting on the 2022 Hong Kong Travel Characteristics Survey, LEBGen reduces the mean marginal Jensen-Shannon divergence from 0.0671 to 0.0091 and the mean absolute Cramer's V error by 14.3% over the best-performing baseline, substantially improving both distributional and dependency fidelity.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as a primary source of information and advice, understanding their alignment to humans in terms of values becomes a pressing concern. A growing literature has leveraged large scale surveys to investigate to what extent LLMs' and humans' stated values and opinions align. With limited exceptions, studied populations have been defined country borders or cultural bounds. Yet, this focus neglects the role that socio-demographic divides may play for value alignment disparities. Relying on the European Social Survey, we address this knowledge gap by considering value alignment displayed with respect to 10 prominent commercial LLMs in terms of 15 socio-demographic variables as well as country of residence. Our analyses reveal that LLMs are indeed unequally aligned to the values of different socio-demographic groups, notably those defined by education, income, occupation and religion. When examining alignment at the individual level, a respondent's country, taken as a stand-alone variable, explains a substantial amount of variation that is on par with the full set of considered socio-demographics. Further disentangling the respective role of country-level and socio-demographic factors, we find they are complementary in explaining value alignment patterns, with their relative weights varying across the subset of questions considered.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) models predicting mental health outcomes rarely specify what they measure: contextual knowledge, emotional content, or syntactic structure. NLP Psychometrics treats psychological prediction from text as a psychometric problem, linking scores to interpretable linguistic evidence and testing beyond the training text format. Nine LLMs, conditioned on controlled personas (cognitive digital shadows), completed psychometric questionnaires with textual explanations per item. We extracted emotional profiles and syntactic-semantic structure via textual forma mentis networks, combined with personality and sociodemographic variables in ablated random forest (RF) regressors, using SHAP to identify which features drove performance and in which direction. Full RF models explained up to 70.8% of variance in life satisfaction (SWLS), 55.7% in depression (PHQ-9), and, for DASS-21, 68.5% depression, 76.0% anxiety, 72.4% stress. Sociodemographics alone explained no meaningful variance in depression, anxiety, or stress, but did so for life satisfaction, where emotion features and income were the strongest predictors; neuroticism and network topology instead dominated depression and anxiety, reversing direction between them. Without retraining, RF models separated diaries from low- and high-score personas ($r$ up to 0.91) and, using only network/emotion features, classified clinical from control participants in real transcripts with up to 68% accuracy. These results show the promise and limits of synthetic data: LLM personas can expose model biases, recover patterns consistent with clinical rumination, and support psychometric prediction from human text without a matched questionnaire, but cannot substitute for human validation. NLP Psychometrics makes these distinctions explicit, measurable, and testable through interpretable AI and network/emotional features.

Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias. Real deployments, however, rarely use a single agent: they use pipelines, with review steps meant to catch exactly this kind of failure. We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline (assessment, allocation, independent audit) instead of made and checked by one model alone. Using a synthetic disaster-triage simulator with paired cases that are clinically identical except for one demographic attribute, we run 192 episodes (2,304 resolved case pairs) on GPT-4o-mini comparing a single-agent control condition to a nine-agent pipeline under three independently varied pressure dimensions. We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions (6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.498). We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught: 30.0% of biased outcomes go entirely undetected, rising to 43.8% when the auditor is overloaded and falling to 18.4% when it is not. Decomposing this effect shows it is driven almost entirely by coverage (whether a case is reviewed at all, which collapses from 100.0% to 65.6% under load, p < 0.001) rather than by degraded judgment on the cases that are reviewed (81.6% vs. 85.7%, p = 1.000, direction reversed). A follow-up experiment shows that reordering the audit queue by estimated risk, rather than first-come-first-served, recovers most of the lost coverage under the same capacity constraint (65.6% to 91.7%, p = 0.028). We discuss the implications for any system that adds independent oversight to an LLM agent pipeline under resource constraints, and report the study's limitations honestly: one model, modest sample sizes, and no adversarial replication.

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We make the cross-domain benchmark and the evaluation framework available on request, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview. This raises concerns beyond bias in AI: do LLMs grasp the emotional nuances conveyed via textual framing? In this work, we empirically evaluate how well an array of LLMs aligns with human emotional perception. Considering news headlines covering political and geopolitical conflicts, both human participants (n = 3011, a representative sample of the U.K. adult population, via a YouGov survey) and seven LLMs answered whether headlines evoked sympathy for a specified side in a conflict. We find that the correlation between AI and human evaluations varies across models, ranging from very high (0.789, GPT-5.2) to medium (0.4 ,Mistral Large 2512). Crucially, the leading models are broadly aligned with human judgments across all demographic subgroups, including age, gender, level of education, prior geopolitical knowledge, and participants' predispositions regarding the conflict, although there are statistically significant differences between groups. This research, with its robust design and large, demographically diverse dataset, offers the most comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' comprehension of news framing to date. Findings highlight an important, often-ignored aspect of differential alignment: even when aggregate performance is high, AI alignment is not universal -- it may correspond differently with demographic features and cultural norms. Considering or ignoring the need for differential alignment may therefore have significant implications for the development of ethical and useful AI systems.

Air pollution and climate-related stressors are increasingly important concerns for respiratory health, especially in settings with unequal environmental exposure and healthcare capacity. This study evaluates an interpretable machine learning framework for predicting respiratory disease rates and air-quality status using structured country-level weekly data. Two supervised learning tasks were considered: regression of respiratory disease rate per 100,000 population and binary classification of air-quality status. Nine regression models and nine classification models were compared using nested cross-validation. Model interpretation was conducted using SHAP values, and subgroup analysis was performed across income levels and geographic regions. The results showed that PM2.5 concentration was the dominant predictor of respiratory disease rate, with linear and regularized linear models achieving the strongest regression performance. For air-quality classification, models achieved high balanced accuracy when PM2.5 was included, but performance decreased substantially when PM2.5 was removed, indicating strong dependence on pollutant-related information. SHAP analysis showed that, without PM2.5, socioeconomic and meteorological variables such as GDP per capita, precipitation, and healthcare access became more influential. Subgroup analysis showed similar aggregate regression error across income groups, but PM2.5 contributed more strongly to predictions in lower-middle-income countries. These results show that model accuracy alone is not sufficient for climate-health prediction. Interpretable models can help identify dominant pollution-related signals, test whether results depend on key pollutant variables, and show whether prediction patterns differ across socioeconomic groups.

Graph neural networks (GNNs) frequently encounter group fairness issues, often yielding biased predictions against specific demographic groups defined by sensitive attributes such as gender or race. While this challenge has motivated extensive research, most existing solutions rely on the strong assumption that demographics are fully available. To bypass this strict requirement, a few recent studies have attempted to use predicted demographics as proxies to enforce fairness constraints. However, predicted demographics may be inaccurate, resulting in the failure to improve fairness. In this work, we investigate the problem of graph fairness without demographic information and avoid the utilization of predicted demographics. Motivated by our observation that the gradient distributions of misclassified nodes implicitly encode demographic information, we first propose GradDist, a gradient-based metric that quantifies bias by measuring the distance between local modes within these distributions. To mitigate this bias, we propose Gradient-to-Fairness (Grad2Fair), a gradient-guided approach for group fairness without demographics. Due to the potential demographics in gradients, Grad2Fair directly leverages gradients to debias and eliminates demographic prediction, thereby enabling stable fairness performance. Experiments on several real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of Grad2Fair, as evidenced by superior performance over baselines in most cases. Our code is available at https://github.com/ZzoomD/Grad2Fair.

Micro-expression recognition is limited by the small scale, narrow demographic coverage, and restricted emotion labels of existing datasets. We introduce EquiME, a synthetic micro-expression dataset built from AU-guided image-to-video generation. EquiME contains 75K videos generated from 15K source face images across five target emotions, together with automatically inferred demographic metadata and video-quality measurements. We evaluate EquiME using frame-pair similarity, spatial variation, and no-reference perceptual-quality metrics, together with cross-dataset MER experiments on SAMM and CASME II. Models trained on EquiME achieve competitive cross-dataset performance on SAMM and CASME II and show comparatively low variation across the four evaluated architectures. This paper focuses on the dataset design, the structured AU-conditioning pipeline used for video generation, and the empirical evidence needed to assess EquiME as a synthetic MER resource. Project page: https://kirito-blade.github.io/me-vlm/

We investigate how annotator demographic attributes, supplied as prompt cues, shape the alignment between large language model (LLM) predictions and human annotations across five tasks. Using five open-source LLMs, we systematically vary the number and composition of demographic components in the prompt, spanning every combination from single-attribute through full-attribute configurations. Our experiments reveal three principal findings. First, alignment consistently peaks with one to three high-signal attributes and degrades under the full attribute set, establishing a clear over-specification threshold. Second, the overall magnitude of demographic influence on human annotations does not predict which attributes improve LLM alignment; instead, both the learnability and the directional coherence of each attribute's annotation signal need to be considered jointly. Third, neuron probing reveals that specialized activation correlates with alignment gains only under coherent annotation signals, and that activation volume alone does not imply steerability. Together, these results demonstrate that demographic prompting is not a monolithic intervention: its utility is highly context-dependent, shaped by attribute signal quality, task characteristics, and model architecture.

A trustworthy and GDPR-compliant deepfake audio detector must base its decisions on acoustic artifacts, not on what is being said or who is speaking. We present a large-scale study of semantic independence for Resemble AI's detector, DETECT-3B-Omni. Using 10,240 audio samples from diverse US English speakers across 30 states, generated through 8 different AI voice-cloning systems, we test whether detection accuracy depends on spoken content (benign versus malicious), speaker gender, speaker age, or speaker region. Using equivalence testing, our results show that the accuracy difference between any two of these groups is at most 2 percentage points, at 99% confidence. The detector therefore identifies AI-generated audio with equivalent accuracy regardless of what the audio says or who the speaker is.

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.

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems are increasingly used to support teachers in managing grading workloads and to provide a supplementary rater in large-scale assessments. While human grading is frequently influenced by students' demographic characteristics, the efficacy of different strategies for integrating demographic metadata with textual input used to train AES models remains underexplored. This study investigates the impact of a specific multimodal fusion strategy - naive metadata concatenation - on the predictive accuracy, training convergence, and score parity of a DistilBERT-based AES model. A comparative analysis was conducted using the ASAP 2.0 dataset to evaluate a baseline model against an experimental model trained with input that concatenates tokenised text and demographic metadata using a naive multimodal fusion strategy. Evaluated via 10-fold cross-validation, the findings reveal that the early fusion of demographic metadata and the input significantly degrades the model's overall predictive accuracy. The baseline model achieved a Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.727, which dropped to 0.656 upon integrating metadata. Furthermore, the experimental model exhibited higher validation loss (1.29) compared to the baseline model (1.25). The experimental model also displayed exacerbated scoring bias, reducing score parity instances from 15 to 12 out of 19 tests.

Transformer-based clinical language models are increasingly integrated into high-stakes clinical decision support pipelines, yet the computational mechanisms through which demographic associations encoded in medical documentation propagate into model probability distributions remain empirically underspecified. We present a systematic computational audit of representational bias in ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019), a BERT-based model pretrained on MIMIC-III discharge summaries, employing two complementary probing methodologies: Log Probability Bias Analysis (LPBA), which quantifies demographic descriptor-induced shifts in masked token probability distributions across behavioral and evaluative semantic categories, and Masked Language Model-based analysis (MLM), which probes internal representational structure for demographic agency attribution encoding across 98 real clinical sentence templates and eight intersectional race-gender combinations. Corpus frequency analysis operationalizes the distinction between statistical disparity and bias amplification by benchmarking model outputs against empirical term frequencies in the MIMIC-III training corpus. Of 32 statistically significant findings, 65.6% contradict observed corpus distributions, rising to 80% for Black patients and 87.5% for agency attribution under MLM probing, providing direct empirical evidence that representational bias in ClinicalBERT operates predominantly through model-internal amplification rather than training data inheritance. Keywords: natural language processing, clinical documentation, algorithmic auditing, representational bias, health equity 1

Research on bias in large language models (LLMs) has predominantly focused on third-person audits, which study how models represent or evaluate demographic groups as external subjects. However, this paradigm overlooks a structural blind spot because the user is absent from the audit. In practice, LLMs are used in open-ended, personal interactions, during which the model implicitly represents the user and adjusts its responses accordingly. When identical requests yield different responses depending on who is asking, bias manifests not in how the model describes others but in how it treats its interlocutor. We propose Situated Interaction Auditing (SIA), a user-centered framework for studying how user profile signals -- implicit sociodemographic markers, writing style, and stated identity -- systematically shape LLM response quality, content, and tone. We demonstrate the framework through a case study that intersects gender and socioeconomic status signals across multiple task domains and outline a research agenda for SIA as a new mission for natural language processing.

Social meaning in language is inherently perspectival, varying across annotator backgrounds, demographics, and ideological positions. However, most NLP systems collapse this variation into a single ground-truth label, ignoring the diversity of interpretations. In this work, we model social dimensions along a perspectivist spectrum, capturing how interpretations vary across demographic groups on a dataset consisting of 28k human annotations. We benchmark multiple modeling paradigms, including zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned approaches, and propose fusion embeddings that integrate textual and demographic representations. Our fusion models yield consistent and statistically significant improvements over text-only baselines across all fusion strategies (+5.9-6.5% relative macro PR-AUC), with shuffle ablations confirming that demographic profiles carry genuine predictive signal rather than spurious correlations.

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Childhood asthma is a common illness exacerbated by air pollution as well as meteorological and neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors. Modeling asthma exacerbation (AE) in large spatiotemporal datasets requires disentangling impacts from multiple contributors. In this case study, we compared three techniques that balance predictive power with interpretability to predict AE in Hampton Roads, a coastal Virginia region comprising 7 cities and over 1.5 million people. After collating ambient air pollution measurements, weather data, and measures of neighborhood opportunity, we modeled zip code-level acute AE visits to a regional children's hospital and affiliated providers from 2018-2023. Generalized linear models (GLM) provided a baseline while neural networks (NN) served as a maximally predictive target. To bridge between statistical models and deep learning, we developed a framework based on sparse dictionary learning to identify and interpret parsimonious nonlinear interacting equations. After comparing each model's predictive performance, we estimated relative risks for AE due to input exposure variables and found consensus across frameworks. Our work links statistical and interpretable machine learning models to highlight possible synergistic interactions influencing AE, and may enable future studies to guide public health interventions in coastal Virginia.

Deepfake detectors show large performance gaps across demographic groups. Existing fairness approaches require demographic labels, retraining, or sacrifice accuracy. We introduce Face-Fairness (FF), a plug-and-play framework for bias mitigation. Our primary contribution, Face-Feature Tuning (FFT), is the first demographic label-free fairness method demonstrated for deepfake detection: a lightweight calibrator that performs a logit remapping conditioned on frozen face embeddings. We complement FFT with two variants: FF-Max, which maximizes worst-group accuracy when demographics are available, and FF-Discover, which does the same with embedding-discovered groups. Across in-domain and cross-dataset test settings, FF consistently reduces FPR/TPR gaps and improves minimum group accuracy while maintaining (often improving) overall accuracy. The approach is detector-agnostic, adds negligible runtime overhead, and requires no access to identity attributes.

We introduce Adaptive Calibration (AC), a novel calibration strategy for facial recognition that maps cosine similarity between normalized embeddings to well-calibrated probabilities. By incorporating local context into calibration, Adaptive Calibration corrects for a fundamental mismatch in cosine similarity, whereby the same distance can correspond to different match probabilities in different embedding regions. Our approach improves both overall performance and results in a fairer calibration without requiring demographic metadata. Our approach often improves worst-group ranking and probability quality across a variety of pretrained models and standard benchmarks, with gains in low-FPR verification performance depending on the setting. AC provides a practical solution for equitable facial recognition, without requiring demographic group annotations, and while improving overall performance. Our method provides continuous, region-specific calibration, and we examine per-group performance to assess "leveling down" where fairness comes at the cost of degraded performance for some groups.

Smart meter data can reveal sensitive socio-demographic characteristics of households, raising privacy concerns. While this risk has been demonstrated at fixed granularities, the role of temporal resolution in shaping inference performance remains insufficiently explored. This paper addresses this gap by analyzing how load profiles with granularities from 15 minutes to 7 days affect the predictability of eight socio-demographic attributes in a dataset of 1,589 households over one year. We introduce an evaluation framework where classifiers are trained on year-round data but tested on arbitrary weeks, forcing generalization across seasonal and weekly variations. Our results show three main findings. First, while coarsening granularity reduces predictive accuracy, two plateaus emerge: performance is stable between 15 minutes and 1 hour, and again between 1 and 7 days. This reveals opportunities for data minimization without sacrificing utility. Second, interpretable handcrafted and tsfresh features remain competitive with CNN-based autoencoder embeddings, while XGBoost consistently outperforms alternative classifiers. Third, feature importance analysis highlights differences between static and dynamic attributes: dwelling size can be inferred even from coarse data, whereas swimming pool usage requires fine-grained temporal signals. Overall, our study provides new insights into the privacy-utility trade-off in smart metering, showing how temporal resolution, feature extraction, and classifier choice jointly influence socio-demographic inference.

A core goal of computational social science is to discover interpretable differences in how language varies across outcomes of interest, such as political affiliation or instructional quality. Recent LLM-based hypothesis generation methods describe such differences in natural language, but select for globally discriminative patterns without accounting for covariates that shape the data based on researchers' domain knowledge. When covariates are ignored, selected patterns can reflect confounds rather than differences of substantive interest. We introduce conditional hypothesis generation, a framework that incorporates researcher-specified covariates to steer hypothesis discovery toward differences that hold within relevant subgroups. Two challenges arise: the target subgroup may be underrepresented (stratum imbalance), and the direction of a difference may reverse across subgroups (sign reversal). We propose two econometrics-inspired methods: one introduces feature--covariate interactions to detect sign reversals, and the other applies within-stratum demeaning and inverse-frequency reweighting to equalize underrepresented strata. Synthetic experiments show each method outperforms global baselines in its targeted setting, and expert evaluation on two real-world datasets confirms that covariate-aware generation surfaces more useful hypotheses within relevant subgroups.

When large language models (LLMs) are used in high-stakes scenarios, such as legal, medical and financial advice, even a single conversation history is enough to drive differences in outcomes between users. Prior work has demonstrated that this results in outcome disparities between sociodemographic groups, with some groups receiving more advantageous outcomes than others. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs actually struggle to infer user sociodemographics from a single conversation history and that although there are disparities between sociodemographic groups, they are minimal in magnitude. To investigate what the main driver of these disparities is, we compare user sociodemographics to a range of (psycho)linguistic features of conversations, including conversation topic, emotions, and readability. We find that conversation topics are most predictive of LLM-generated advice within a conversational context, which, to some extent, function as proxies for sociodemographic groups and often affect advice in unpredictable ways. This is cause for concern and highlights the need for future research to better understand and, if needed, mitigate the effect of conversational context on LLM outputs in high-stakes scenarios.

Text-to-Image (TTI) systems are now everyday infrastructure for journalism, education, advertising, and public communication, and the demographic and cultural stereotypes they inherit from training data (rendering women, people of colour, older adults, and non-Western cultures as under-represented or caricatured) become a population-level harm at deployment scale. Existing mitigations either require costly retraining, infeasible for the closed-source backbones that dominate consumer products, or rely on fixed demographic templates that ignore cultural context. We present KG-FairDiff, a model-agnostic, inference-time framework that formalises fairness-aware prompt refinement as a constrained optimisation problem and operationalises it as a closed-loop pipeline: a knowledge graph of ~1,200 culture- and bias-related triples retrieves structured context, an LLM rewriter proposes refinements, and a validator accepts only prompts that reduce a divergence-based fairness loss while preserving semantic fidelity to the user's original intent. We prove a finite-termination bound for the refinement loop, contribute a mathematically consistent evaluation suite linking Bias-P/Bias-W to divergence from target distributions and ENS to KL divergence, and audit eight widely-deployed backbone generators. KG-FairDiff substantially reduces gender, race, age, and intersectional disparities while preserving prompt semantics, offering a practical, deployment-ready route to more equitable generative AI.

Medical image analysis models can exhibit performance disparities across patient subgroups, threatening clinical safety and fairness. Existing methods typically address this issue by optimizing accuracy and fairness metrics for visible demographic attributes (e.g., sex or age) considered in isolation. This strategy not only overlooks potentially more informative latent stratifications, which may reveal deeper sources of model error and inequity, but also fails to scale when multiple demographic attributes are considered simultaneously due to the resulting sparsity of training data within each subgroup. We deal with these issues by introducing the label-free hidden-cohort fairness (LHCF) training paradigm that instead of maximizing fairness over visible demographic attributes, it optimizes fairness across latent subpopulations discovered from image appearance. By clustering images into K appearance-based cohorts and applying fairness optimization over them, LHCF uncovers underlying sources of model error and avoids the combinatorial sparsity of multi-demographic attributes, reducing disparities across both single and multiple demographic attributes. We demonstrate on our proposed fairness benchmark, HIDFairBench, that LHCF provides state-of-the-art fairness results on single and multiple demographic attributes, despite never using demographic labels for training. Our results position hidden-cohort fairness as a practical, scalable, and robust alternative to demographic-based fairness optimization for trustworthy medical image analysis.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capability in generating reward functions for deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based building energy management. However, their potential to exhibit or exacerbate disparities in occupant comfort across heterogeneous demographic populations remains unexplored. We present OccuReward, a framework investigating how LLM-mediated reward design affects demographic equity. Our contribution is three-fold: the introduction of the Comfort Equity Index (CEI) as a novel feedback signal; a methodology for iterative, equity-aware LLM reward shaping; and a performance analysis of DRL agents under these refined objectives. Utilizing four empirically grounded occupant profiles from the ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II (13,440 votes), we deploy a Soft Actor-Critic agent in CityLearn v2. Our approach employs the Gemini API to generate reward function logic and weights--rather than performing per-step inference--across three refinement rounds. Results across 15 experimental runs reveal that elderly female occupants consistently experience the lowest satisfaction in initial rounds. By Round 3, equity-aware LLM refinement activates specific reward components that improve satisfaction for Young Males (+17.6%), Mid-aged Females (+28.2%), Health Sensitive (+53.8%), and Elderly Females (+567%), while simultaneously reducing energy costs by 3.2%. Our findings highlight that while reward-level intervention significantly improves equity, demographic disparities in AI-driven controllers persist, necessitating further research into algorithmic fairness in building systems.

Demographic information is often used to model annotator perspectives in subjective tasks such as hate speech detection, but its benefit is inconsistent: it improves performance in some settings and behaves as noise in others. This paper asks when demographic features help. We analyze demographic gain as a function of both data split properties and modeling frameworks. For data splits, we measure annotator disagreement, namely how often annotators assign different labels to the same example, along with training size and train-test demographic coverage. We find that demographic gains concentrate in regimes with low training disagreement, high test disagreement, fine-grained ambiguity measurement, sufficient training data, and greater demographic overlap. Motivated by these regimes, we introduce a gated demographic residual model that treats demographics as a selective adjustment to text-only predictions. Experiments on MHS and POPQUORN show that this design is effective, especially on high disagreement or low confidence examples. Overall, our results suggest that demographics should not be assumed useful by default; their value depends jointly on the data regime and the modeling framework.

Diagnostic performance in medical AI varies systematically across demographic groups, yet subgroup AUC can mask clinically important disparities. At a fixed inference-time operating point, some groups may exhibit over-diagnostic behaviour, characterized by elevated true and false positive rates, while others show under-diagnostic patterns with reduced true and false positive rates. These opposing tendencies can cancel in aggregate AUCs while producing meaningful inequities in clinical decision-making. Motivated by the need to assess and mitigate such disparities at the operating point and across multiple demographic attributes simultaneously, we propose a worst-group equalized-odds margin regularizer. The proposed regularizer explicitly targets subgroup-level deviations on both the true positive and false positive sides at inference. At each update, the method identifies subgroups defined by explicit demographic attributes (e.g., age, sex, and race) that exhibit the most extreme margin deviations and applies a unified penalty, enabling fairness optimization across multiple demographic axes without requiring explicit intersectional constraints. Across two medical imaging datasets in realistic multi-label settings, our method consistently reduces disparities in Equalized Odds and Equalized Opportunity with minimal impact on AUC, preserving diagnostic performance while improving fairness.

When a neural network estimates someone's age from a photograph, does it process biometric data? The answer depends on whether identity-discriminative representations arise within the network during inference, a question that may seem trivial to ML researchers but triggers consent requirements under GDPR, statutory damages under BIPA, or high-risk AI classification under the EU AI Act. Yet no regulatory guidance addresses it. This position paper provides empirical evidence: 14 models evaluated across 3 face verification benchmarks show age estimators fall orders of magnitude short of identification thresholds. Age estimation models cannot identify individuals. We call on researchers to provide transparency about what systems store and can do, and on regulators to distinguish transient processing from template storage.

Synthetic persona datasets cite alignment with official demographics as a basis for trust, yet downstream users consume them as joint structures across age, sex, region, occupation, education, name, and institutional status. Marginal alignment does not imply that these joints are preserved. We propose the Independence-Assumption Footprint (IAF), an audit primitive that operates on the attribute combinations a dataset card itself documents as treated independently. For each such combination, IAF compares the synthetic joint against an external official or institutional reference, using direct joint tables where available and rule-implied checks otherwise. Applied to NVIDIA Nemotron-Personas-Korea (one million Korean synthetic personas), IAF finds that NPK aligns with KOSIS marginals while three joints fail. The major-by-occupation distribution against the KEIS graduate universe carries a large conditional mismatch. The age profile of military service is institutionally inconsistent. Female representation in male-dominated occupations is substantially over-flattened toward parity, with the strict screening verdict mapping-dependent and age-robust under direct standardisation. A transferability demonstration across six further NPK locales finds locale-dependent rather than universal diagnostics, with reference-taxonomy cardinality confounding cross-locale flag counts. For synthetic personas used as silicon samples, marginal claims must therefore be paired with disclosure-anchored joint audits before reuse. The released audit artefacts (reference manifests, occupational crosswalks, derived metrics, reproducibility scripts) instantiate this protocol on the NPK family and are released for retargeting at other synthetic persona resources.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on coarse-grained national labels for pluralistic value alignment. However, such macro-level supervision often obscures intra-country value heterogeneity, yielding a loose alignment. We argue that resolving this limitation requires shifting from national labels to multi-dimensional demographic constraints, which can identify groups with predictable, high-consensus value preference. To this end, we propose DVMap (High-Consensus Demographic-Value Mapping), a framework for fine-grained pluralistic value alignment. In this framework, we first present a demographic archetype extraction strategy to construct a high-quality value alignment corpus of 56,152 samples from the World Values Survey (WVS) by strictly retaining respondents with consistent value preferences under identical demographics. Over this corpus, we introduce a Structured Chain-of-Thought (CoT) mechanism that explicitly guides LLMs to reason about demographic-value correlations. Subsequently, we employ Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to achieve adaptive anchoring of value distributions. To rigorously evaluate generalization, we further establish a triple-generalization benchmark (spanning cross-demographic, cross-country, and cross-value) comprising 21,553 samples. Experimental results demonstrate that DVMap effectively learns the manifold mapping from demographics to values, exhibiting strong generalization and robustness. On cross-demographic tests, Qwen3-8B-DVMap achieves 48.6% accuracy, surpassing the advanced open-source LLM DeepSeek-v3.2 (45.1%). The source code and dataset are available at https://github.com/EnlightenedAI/DVMap.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed not only to make decisions but to explain them. While AI decision fairness has been studied extensively, the fairness of AI explanations (whether LLMs justify decisions with equal quality, depth, tone, and linguistic sophistication across demographic groups) has received little attention. This paper introduces the Explanation Fairness Taxonomy (EFT), a framework comprising five formally defined, operationalizable dimensions: Verbosity Disparity, Sentiment Disparity, Epistemic Hedging Disparity, Decision-Linked Explanation Disparity, and Lexical Complexity Disparity. The taxonomy is instantiated in a controlled empirical study across 80 prompt templates, four consequential decision domains (hiring, medical triage, credit assessment, legal judgment), and five LLMs: GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet, LLaMA 3.3 70B, GPT-OSS 120B, and Qwen3 32B. Two novel black-box metrics are introduced: the Hedging Density Score (HDS) and the Explanation Faithfulness Proxy (EFP), a heuristic indicator of decision-linked explanation variation. Across up to 400 prompt pairs, all eight EFT metrics show statistically significant disparities (Cohen's d ranging from small to large, all p_BH < 10^(-62)). Model choice is strongly associated with disparity magnitude: Qwen3 32B exhibits verbosity disparities 5.9x larger than LLaMA 3.3 70B. Two prompting-based mitigations show significant reductions in EFP disparity (78-95%) but no significant effect on stylistic dimensions, consistent with the hypothesis that stylistic explanation inequalities are encoded in pre-training distributions and are not resolvable through deployment-level instruction alone. A reproducible measurement framework is offered for explanation-level fairness auditing, with implications for AI regulation and deployment practice.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can strongly shape social discourse, yet datasets investigating how LLM outputs vary across controlled social and contextual prompting remain sparse. Cognitive Digital Shadows (CDS) is a 190,000-record synthetic corpus supporting analyses of LLM-generated discourse. Each CDS record is generated by one of 19 LLMs, prompted to shadow either a human persona or an AI-assistant role. CDS contains LLM responses on 4 controversial societal topics: vaccines/healthcare, social media disinformation, the gender gap in science, and STEM stereotypes. Persona-conditioned records encode 17 sociodemographic and psychological attributes, providing data linking LLMs' prompts, language, stances and reasoning. Texts are validated for topic anchoring and can support emotional analyses via interpretable NLP (e.g. textual forma mentis networks). CDS is enriched by a pooling platform with user-friendly dashboards, enabling easy, interactive group-level comparisons of emotional and semantic framing across personas, topics and models. The CDS prompting framework supports future audits of LLMs' bias, social sensitivity and alignment.

Large language models (LLM) agents may offer tools to predict human responses to surveys. A common technique for defining these agents uses only demographics, for example country, age, gender, employment status, income, education and marital status. We compare the predictive accuracy of demographic agents to that of survey agents defined with a larger set of in-domain survey responses. We test both approaches in predicting responses to the multidisciplinary, cross-national Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), focusing on five variables from three policy-relevant constructs around personal finance. In these three constructs, we observe that, compared to survey agents trained on broader data, demographics-only agents (1) exhibited a central tendency bias, skewing answers toward population means, and (2) were unrealistically accurate, failing to reproduce the incorrect answers and "don't know" responses typical of human respondents. These performance differences are further substantiated through the replication of a hierarchical regression analysis from prior retirement planning research. Agents based solely on demographic information reproduce the outcome that financial risk tolerance, future time perspective, and knowledge of retirement planning each are predictive of retirement savings. However, only the survey-anchored agents succeed in reproducing the interaction among these three factors. These findings suggest caution in using only demographics to define LLM agents for predicting survey responses.

As state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous, ensuring equitable performance across diverse demographics is critical. However, it remains unclear whether these disparities arise from the explicitly stated identity itself or from the way identity is signaled. In real-world interactions, users' identity is often conveyed implicitly through a complex combination of various socio-linguistic factors. This study disentangles these signals by employing a factorial design with over 24,000 responses from two open-weight LLMs (Gemma-3-12B and Qwen-3-VL-8B), comparing prompts with explicitly announced user profiles against implicit dialect signals (e.g., AAVE, Singlish) across various sensitive domains. Our results uncover a unique paradox in LLM safety where users achieve better'' performance by sounding like a demographic than by stating they belong to it. Explicit identity prompts activate aggressive safety filters, increasing refusal rates and reducing semantic similarity compared to our reference text for Black users. In contrast, implicit dialect cues trigger a powerful dialect jailbreak,'' reducing refusal probability to near zero while simultaneously achieving a greater level of semantic similarity to the reference texts compared to Standard American English prompts. However, this dialect jailbreak'' introduces a critical safety trade-off regarding content sanitization. We find that current safety alignment techniques are brittle and over-indexed on explicit keywords, creating a bifurcated user experience where standard'' users receive cautious, sanitized information while dialect speakers navigate a less sanitized, more raw, and potentially a more hostile information landscape and highlights a fundamental tension in alignment--between equitable and linguistic diversity--and underscores the need for safety mechanisms that generalize beyond explicit cues.

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.

Humans often hold different perspectives on the same issues. In many NLP tasks, annotation disagreement can reflect valid subjective perspectives. Modeling annotator perspectives and understanding their relationship with other human factors, such as socio-demographic attributes, have received increasing attention. Prior work typically focuses on single demographic factors or limited combinations. However, in real-world settings, annotator perspectives are shaped by complex social contexts, and finer-grained socio-demographic attributes can better explain human perspectives. In this work, we propose Socio-Contrastive Learning, a method that jointly models annotator perspectives while learning socio-demographic representations. Our method provides an effective approach for the fusion of socio-demographic features and textual representations to predict annotator perspectives, outperforming standard concatenation-based methods. The learned representations further enable analysis and visualization of how demographic factors relate to variation in annotator perspectives. Our code is available at GitHub: https://github.com/Leixin-Zhang/Socio_Contrastive_Learning

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to curate and rank human-created content, yet the nature and structure of their biases in these tasks remains poorly understood: which biases are robust across providers and platforms, and which can be mitigated through prompt design. We present a controlled simulation study mapping content selection biases across three major LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) on real social media datasets from Twitter/X, Bluesky, and Reddit, using six prompting strategies (\textit{general}, \textit{popular}, \textit{engaging}, \textit{informative}, \textit{controversial}, \textit{neutral}). Through 540,000 simulated top-10 selections from pools of 100 posts across 54 experimental conditions, we find that biases differ substantially in how structural and how prompt-sensitive they are. Polarization is amplified across all configurations, toxicity handling shows a strong inversion between engagement- and information-focused prompts, and sentiment biases are predominantly negative. Provider comparisons reveal distinct trade-offs: GPT-4o Mini shows the most consistent behavior across prompts; Claude and Gemini exhibit high adaptivity in toxicity handling; Gemini shows the strongest negative sentiment preference. On Twitter/X, where author demographics can be inferred from profile bios, political leaning bias is the clearest demographic signal: left-leaning authors are systematically over-represented despite right-leaning authors forming the pool plurality in the dataset, and this pattern largely persists across prompts.

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.

As large language models (LLMs) are adopted into frameworks that grant them the capacity to make real decisions, it is increasingly important to ensure that they are unbiased. In this paper, we argue that the predominant approach of simply removing existing biases from models is not enough. Using a paradigm from the psychology literature, we demonstrate that LLMs can spontaneously develop novel social biases about artificial demographic groups even when no inherent differences exist. These biases result in highly stratified task allocations, which are less fair than assignments by human participants and are exacerbated in newer and larger models. In humans, emergent biases like these have been shown to result from exploration-exploitation trade-offs, where the decision-maker explores too little, allowing early observations to strongly influence impressions about entire demographic groups. To alleviate this effect, we explore a series of interventions targeting model inputs, problem structure, and explicit steering. While most interventions have limited effect, explicitly incentivizing exploration robustly reduces stratification, highlighting the need for better multifaceted objectives to mitigate bias. These results reveal that LLMs are not merely passive mirrors of human social biases, but can actively create new ones from experience, raising urgent questions about how these systems will shape societies over time.

Medical decision systems increasingly rely on data from multiple sources to ensure reliable and unbiased diagnosis. However, existing multimodal learning models fail to achieve this goal because they often overlook two critical challenges. First, various data modalities may learn unevenly, thereby converging to a model biased towards certain modalities. Second, the model may emphasize learning on certain demographic groups causing unfair performances. The two aspects can influence each other, as different data modalities may favor respective groups during optimization, leading to both imbalanced and unfair multimodal learning. This paper proposes a novel approach called MultiFair for multimodal medical classification, which addresses these challenges with a dual-level gradient modulation process. MultiFair dynamically modulates training gradients regarding the optimization direction and magnitude at both data modality and group levels. We evaluate MultiFair on three real-world medical classification datasets with diverse demographic attributes,including multiclass classification and missing-modality settings. Experimental results demonstrate its effectiveness.

We investigate whether socioeconomic indicators, like household wealth, leave recoverable informational imprints in both satellite imagery (capturing features like buildings and roads) and Internet-sourced text (reflecting historical, cultural, and narratives of neighborhoods). Using DHS data from African neighborhoods (clusters), we pair high-resolution Landsat images with textual descriptions generated by LLMs conditioned on location/year, plus text retrieved by an LLM-driven AI Search Agent from web sources. We develop a multimodal framework that predicts household wealth (International Wealth Index; IWI) via five pipelines: (i) a vision model on satellite images, (ii) an LLM using only location and year, (iii) an AI agent that searches and synthesizes web text, (iv) a joint image-text encoder, and (v) an ensemble of all signals. Our framework yields three contributions. First, evaluations show that fusing vision and agent/LLM-generated text improves on vision-only baselines in wealth prediction (e.g., R-squared of 0.77 vs. 0.63 on out-of-sample splits), with LLM-internal knowledge (artificial neural memory) proving surprisingly predictive in out-of-country/time generalization. Second, we find suggestive evidence of partial representational alignment: fused embeddings from vision and language modalities correlate moderately (median cosine similarity across modalities of about 0.60 after alignment). This pattern is broadly consistent with the Platonic Representation Hypothesis, but does not by itself establish convergence to a single shared latent representation. Because agent-retrieved data yields only marginal and unstable gains across splits, our evidence for the Agent-Induced Novelty Hypothesis is limited. Third, we release a large-scale multimodal dataset of about 60,000 DHS clusters, each linked to satellite images, LLM-generated descriptions, and AI-agent-retrieved texts.

Demographics and cultural background of annotators influence the labels they assign in text annotation -- for instance, an elderly woman might find it offensive to read a message addressed to a "bro", but a male teenager might find it appropriate. It is therefore important to acknowledge label variations to not under-represent members of a society. Two research directions developed out of this observation in the context of using large language models (LLM) for data annotations, namely (1) studying biases and inherent knowledge of LLMs and (2) injecting diversity in the output by manipulating the prompt with demographic information. We combine these two strands of research and ask the question to which demographics an LLM resorts to when no demographics is given. To answer this question, we evaluate which attributes of human annotators LLMs inherently mimic. Furthermore, we compare non-demographic conditioned prompts and placebo-conditioned prompts (e.g., "you are an annotator who lives in house number 5") to demographics-conditioned prompts ("You are a 45 year old man and an expert on politeness annotation. How do you rate {instance}"). We study these questions for politeness and offensiveness annotations on the POPQUORN data set, a corpus created in a controlled manner to investigate human label variations based on demographics which has not been used for LLM-based analyses so far. We observe notable influences related to gender, race, and age in demographic prompting, which contrasts with previous studies that found no such effects.