The paper argues that fairness failures in generative models arise mainly from inadequate evaluation practices, making fairness findings hard to compare or use for deployment. It diagnoses common empirical and conceptual shortcomings in current methods and calls for a move toward standardized, generative‑specific evaluation. The authors introduce Fairness Cards, a minimal reporting artifact that explicitly documents evaluation choices—such as prompt families, counterfactual protocols, metrics, and refusal handling—to improve reproducibility, comparability, and accountability.
By Mariia Vladimirova, Jean-Yves Franceschi, Thibaut Issenhuth
Despite groundbreaking advancements in generative models during the last decade, concerns about their lack of fairness, reinforcing societal inequalities and harming marginalized groups, remain under-...
arXiv:2607. 28934v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in the distribution of scarce resources, raising concerns about biased allocations based on characteristics like race and gender.
By Martin Lukk (University of Toronto)
arXiv:2606. 01719v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine learning models trained on sensitive data can inadvertently leak population-level information about their training distributions -- a threat known as distribution inference attack (DIA).
By Rakshit Naidu
arXiv:2407. 14766v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper presents a philosophical and experimental study of fairness interventions in AI classification, centered on the explainability and transparency of corrective methods, and on the opposition between two fairness criteria, namely Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds.
By Thomas Souverain, Paul \'Egr\'e
arXiv:2608. 09899v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In fair ranked link prediction, demographic parity ($\Delta_\mathrm{DP}$) is a common fairness metric.
By Valentijn Oldenburg, Floris de Kam, Stef de Wildt, Jarno Nilson Balk
arXiv:2507. 11548v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The use of publicly available generative AI systems for resume evaluation is often justified by the assumption that these tools reduce bias relative to human judgment.
By Kevin T Webster
The study audits demographic bias across four deep knowledge tracing architectures—DKT, DKVMN, SAKT, and AKT—using two large public datasets (Eedi and OULAD). It finds that bias is context‑dependent: socioeconomic bias is significant on Eedi, while gender bias appears on OULAD for most models. The most accurate model, AKT, also exhibits the greatest bias, and standard mitigation techniques such as reweighting and adversarial debiasing fail to reduce bias without sacrificing accuracy.
By Dang Quang Minh, Nguyen Dung Son, Nguyen Huu Loi, Truong Viet Vu, Nguyen Thai Anh
arXiv:2605. 05882v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Artificial-intelligence systems are becoming ubiquitous in society, yet their predictions typically inherit biases with respect to protected attributes such as race, gender, or age.
By Filip Edstr\"om, Guilherme W. F. Barros, Tetiana Gorbach, Xavier de Luna
arXiv:2607. 28319v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This work presents Fairness Pruning, a lightweight structural intervention method designed for the management and future mitigation of demographic bias in large language models (LLMs).
By Pere Martra, Eugenio Mart\'inez C\'amara, Alfonso Ure\~na L\'opez
PopResume is a population‑representative resume dataset designed for causal fairness auditing of large language model (LLM) and vision‑language model (VLM) resume screeners. It grounds fairness evaluation in real population statistics and preserves natural attribute relationships, enabling path‑specific effect (PSE) analysis that separates business‑necessity from redlining pathways. Using PopResume, the authors evaluated eight models on 60.8K resumes across five occupations and uncovered five discrimination patterns that aggregate metrics missed, demonstrating the value of causally‑grounded auditing.
By Sumin Yu, Juhyeon Park, Taesup Moon
The paper "Fair Like Us? Auditing LLM Alignment in Resource Allocation" presents a method for evaluating how large language models reason about fairness in the allocation of scarce, indivisible resources. It compares LLMs’ first‑person fairness judgments with human responses across various scenarios, finding that models tend to favor stricter fairness constraints, exhibit more self‑interested behavior, and are sensitive to framing. The study also shows that current fine‑tuning datasets struggle to align LLM judgments with human ones.
By Qishen Han, Hadi Hosseini, Joshua Kavner, Samarth Khanna, Sujoy Sikdar, Lirong Xia