This position paper argues that fairness failures in generative models, albeit driven by multiple factors, are ultimately stemming from an evaluation problem: fairness findings are rarely comparable across papers or actionable for deployment decisions.
Abstract
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-addressed and difficult to act upon. This position paper argues that fairness failures in generative models, albeit driven by multiple factors, are ultimately stemming from an evaluation problem: fairness findings are rarely comparable across papers or actionable for deployment decisions. This paper diagnoses recurring empirical and conceptual failure modes in current practice and motivates a shift from ad-hoc bias checks to standardized, generative-specific evaluation. We propose Fairness Cards as a minimal reporting artifact that makes evaluation choices explicit (prompt families, counterfactual protocols, metrics, and refusal handling) enabling reproducibility, comparability, and accountability. We conclude with additional recommendations towards a paradigm shift in evaluation standards. Our project page can be found at https://mariiavladimirova.github.io/fairness-cards .
INTRODUCTION
Nearly a century after Kelley's seminal work Interpretation of educational measurements, we revisit the concept of validity to argue that fairness is not a downstream equity add-on but a core requirement throughout the assessment lifecycle. In health professions education, where assessment decisions shape...
Christina St-Onge, Mélanie Marceau, B. Zumbo· Medical Education· 0 citations
This study introduces a fairness-by-design framework that integrates stakeholder involvement and explainability into the development lifecycle and operationalizes this framework through the Fairness Process Card, a practical tool for documenting procedural justice mechanisms.
Cheng offers a systematic comparison between long-standing test fairness and modern algorithmic fairness, and points to directions for future fairness research across the psychometrics and AI/ML communities.
This paper presents a work-in-progress conceptual framework that bridges Computer Science approaches to formal algorithmic fairness with normative and Social Science fairness approaches regarding perceived fairness, trust, and technology acceptance, embedding both within the sociotechnical conditions that shape human j...
Maike Lindermayr, Mattia Cerrato, Luisa Hübner et al.· 0 citations
A PRISMA 2020-guided systematic literature review draws on 82 studies selected from 493 records retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science and reveals a structural disconnect in the fairness-in-NLP and HCAI governance literature.
Asmae El Moutafail, Khalid Belkhoutout· EPJ Web of Conferences· 0 citations
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...
Zeshen Zheng, Yujia He, Qian‐Cen Lin et al.· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 13, 2026
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 29, 2026
Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.