Image search and retrieval tasks can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, erase cultural identities, and amplify social disparities. Current approaches to mitigate these representational harms balance the number of retrieved items across population groups defined by a small number of (often binary) attributes. However, most existing methods overlook intersectional groups determined by combinations ofgroup attributes, such as gender, race, and ethnicity. We introduce Multi-Group Proportional Representation (MPR), a novel metric that measures representation across intersectional groups. We develop practical methods for estimating MPR, provide theoretical guarantees, and propose optimization algorithms to ensure MPR in retrieval. We demonstrate that existing methods optimizing for equal and proportional representation metrics may fail to promote MPR. Crucially, our work shows that optimizing MPR yields more proportional representation across multiple intersectional groups specified by a rich function class, often with minimal compromise in retrieval accuracy.

Safety guardrails in large language models(LLMs) are developed to prevent malicious users from generating toxic content at a large scale. However, these measures can inadvertently introduce or reflect new biases, as LLMs may refuse to generate harmful content targeting some demographic groups and not others. We explore this selective refusal bias in LLM guardrails through the lens of refusal rates of targeted individual and intersectional demographic groups, types of LLM responses, and length of generated refusals. Our results show evidence of selective refusal bias across gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and religion attributes. This leads us to investigate additional safety implications via an indirect attack, where we target previously refused groups. Our findings emphasize the need for more equitable and robust performance in safety guardrails across demographic groups.

With the rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs), the general public now has easy and affordable access to applications capable of answering most health-related questions in a personalized manner. These LLMs are increasingly proving to be competitive, and now even surpass professionals in some medical capabilities. They hold particular promise in low-resource settings, considering they provide the possibility of widely accessible, quasi-free healthcare support. However, evaluations that fuel these motivations highly lack insights into the social nature of healthcare, oblivious to health disparities between social groups and to how bias may translate into LLM-generated medical advice and impact users. We provide an exploratory analysis of LLM answers to a series of medical questions spanning key clinical domains, where we simulate these questions being asked by several patient profiles that vary in sex, age range, and ethnicity. By comparing natural language features of the generated responses, we show that, when LLMs are used for medical advice generation, they generate responses that systematically differ between social groups. In particular, Indigenous and intersex patients receive advice that is less readable and more complex. We observe these trends amplify when intersectional groups are considered. Considering the increasing trust individuals place in these models, we argue for higher AI literacy and for the urgent need for investigation and mitigation by AI developers to ensure these systemic differences are diminished and do not translate to unjust patient support. Our code is publicly available on GitHub.

Current approaches to mitigate these representational harms balance the number of retrieved items across population groups defined by a small number of (often binary) attributes. However, most existing methods overlook intersectional groups determined by combinations of group attributes, such as gender, race, and ethnicity.

Large language models (LLMs) have been extensively used for legal judgment prediction tasks based on case reports and crime history. However, with a surge in the availability of large vision language models (VLMs), legal judgment prediction systems can now be made to leverage the images of the criminals in addition to the textual case reports/crime history. Applications built in this way could lead to inadvertent consequences and be used with malicious intent. In this work, we run an audit to investigate the efficiency of standalone VLMs in the bail decision prediction task. We observe that the performance is poor across multiple intersectional groups and models \textit{wrongly deny bail to deserving individuals with very high confidence}. We design different intervention algorithms by first including legal precedents through a RAG pipeline and then fine-tuning the VLMs using innovative schemes. We demonstrate that these interventions substantially improve the performance of bail prediction. Our work paves the way for the design of smarter interventions on VLMs in the future, before they can be deployed for real-world legal judgment prediction.

Determining whether an algorithmic decision-making system discriminates against a specific demographic typically involves comparing a single point estimate of a fairness metric against a predefined threshold. This practice is statistically brittle: it ignores sampling error and treats small demographic subgroups the same as large ones. The problem intensifies in intersectional analyses, where multiple sensitive attributes are considered jointly, giving rise to a larger number of smaller groups. As these groups become more granular, the data representing them becomes too sparse for reliable estimation, and fairness metrics yield excessively wide confidence intervals, precluding meaningful conclusions about potential unfair treatments. In this paper, we introduce a unified, size-adaptive, hypothesis-testing framework that turns fairness assessment into an evidence-based statistical decision. Our contribution is twofold. (i) For sufficiently large subgroups, we prove a Central-Limit result for the statistical parity difference, leading to analytic confidence intervals and a Wald test whose type-I (false positive) error is guaranteed at level $α$. (ii) For the long tail of small intersectional groups, we derive a fully Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial estimator; Monte-Carlo credible intervals are calibrated for any sample size and naturally converge to Wald intervals as more data becomes available. We validate our approach empirically on benchmark datasets, demonstrating how our tests provide interpretable, statistically rigorous decisions under varying degrees of data availability and intersectionality.

Text-to-image (T2I) generative models can create vivid, realistic images from textual descriptions. As these models proliferate, they expose new concerns about their ability to represent diverse demographic groups, propagate stereotypes, and efface minority populations. Despite growing attention to the "safe" and "responsible" design of artificial intelligence (AI), there is no established methodology to systematically measure and control representational harms in image generation. This paper introduces a novel framework to measure the representation of intersectional groups in images generated by T2I models by applying the Multi-Group Proportional Representation (MPR) metric. MPR evaluates the worst-case deviation of representation statistics across given population groups in images produced by a generative model, allowing for flexible and context-specific measurements based on user requirements. We also develop an algorithm to optimize T2I models for this metric. Through experiments, we demonstrate that MPR can effectively measure representation statistics across multiple intersectional groups and, when used as a training objective, can guide models toward a more balanced generation across demographic groups while maintaining generation quality.

Image search and retrieval tasks can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, erase cultural identities, and amplify social disparities. Current approaches to mitigate these representational harms balance the number of retrieved items across population groups defined by a small number of (often binary) attributes. However, most existing methods overlook intersectional groups determined by combinations ofgroup attributes, such as gender, race, and ethnicity. We introduce Multi-Group Proportional Representation (MPR), a novel metric that measures representation across intersectional groups. We develop practical methods for estimating MPR, provide theoretical guarantees, and propose optimization algorithms to ensure MPR in retrieval. We demonstrate that existing methods optimizing for equal and proportional representation metrics may fail to promote MPR.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly those based on deep learning models, have increasingly achieved expert-level performance in medical applications. However, there is growing concern that such AI systems may reflect and amplify human bias, and reduce the quality of their performance in historically under-served populations. The fairness issue has attracted considerable research interest in the medical imaging classification field, yet it remains understudied in the text generation domain. In this study, we investigate the fairness problem in text generation within the medical field and observe significant performance discrepancies across different races, sexes, and age groups, including intersectional groups, various model scales, and different evaluation metrics. To mitigate this fairness issue, we propose an algorithm that selectively optimizes those underperformed groups to reduce bias. The selection rules take into account not only word-level accuracy but also the pathology accuracy to the target reference, while ensuring that the entire process remains fully differentiable for effective model training. Our evaluations across multiple backbones, datasets, and modalities demonstrate that our proposed algorithm enhances fairness in text generation without compromising overall performance. Specifically, the disparities among various groups across different metrics were diminished by more than 30% with our algorithm, while the relative change in text generation accuracy was typically within 2%. By reducing the bias generated by deep learning models, our proposed approach can potentially alleviate concerns about the fairness and reliability of text generation diagnosis in medical domain. Our code is publicly available to facilitate further research at https://github.com/iriscxy/GenFair.