Generative AI (GenAI) models present new challenges in regulating against discriminatory behavior. In this paper, we argue that GenAI fairness research still has not met these challenges; instead, a significant gap remains between existing bias assessment methods and regulatory goals. This leads to ineffective regulation that can allow deployment of reportedly fair, yet actually discriminatory, GenAI systems. Towards remedying this problem, we connect the legal and technical literature around GenAI bias evaluation and identify areas of misalignment. Through four case studies, we demonstrate how this misalignment between fairness testing techniques and regulatory goals can result in discriminatory outcomes in real-world deployments, especially in adaptive or complex environments. We offer practical recommendations for improving discrimination testing to better align with regulatory goals and enhance the reliability of fairness assessments in future deployments.

We consider the problem of selecting an optimal subset of information sources for a hypothesis testing/classification task where the goal is to identify the true state of the world from a finite set of hypotheses, based on finite observation samples from the sources. In order to characterize the learning performance, we propose a misclassification penalty framework, which enables nonuniform treatment of different misclassification errors. In a centralized Bayesian learning setting, we study two variants of the subset selection problem: (i) selecting a minimum cost information set to ensure that the maximum penalty of misclassifying the true hypothesis is below a desired bound and (ii) selecting an optimal information set under a limited budget to minimize the maximum penalty of misclassifying the true hypothesis. Under certain assumptions, we prove that the objective (or constraints) of these combinatorial optimization problems are weak (or approximate) submodular, and establish high-probability performance guarantees for greedy algorithms. Further, we propose an alternate metric for information set selection which is based on the total penalty of misclassification. We prove that this metric is submodular and establish near-optimal guarantees for the greedy algorithms for both the information set selection problems. Finally, we present numerical simulations to validate our theoretical results over several randomly generated instances.