Applications of Risk Science to AI Fairness Evaluation: Principles, Challenges, and Best Practices

Scholarly work which aims to describe potential societal impacts (e.g., risks) of proliferating technology (especially related to artificial intelligence or other algorithmic systems) is likely to have an impact beyond the scientific communities it was written for, given that general society itself is a primary object of study. However, it is an open question whether the current practices of AI evaluation scholarship follow the principles and best practices established by risk science, which aims to systematically generate knowledge related to understanding, assessing, communicating, managing, and governing risk. In this work, we examine this in depth by conducting a literature review of scholarly works purporting to evaluate the bias or fairness of technological systems used for tasks related to hiring and employment. Through analysis of 22 common fairness evaluation metrics and studies using them, we find that most characterize the severity of bias- or fairness-related consequences but do not follow best practices to characterize the uncertainty around either the occurrence of these consequences or severity estimates. Next, we conduct a case study of fairness evaluation for an AI-mediated resume screening task and demonstrate how principles of risk science can be incorporated into such an evaluation. Finally, we propose the AI Risk Report Card, which facilitates the reporting and communication of risk assessment results to stakeholders in positions to act based on the predicted risks. The outcomes of these activities suggest that further research at the convergence of risk science and AI evaluation can lead to advancements in AI assessments of societal impact by enabling shared frameworks to evaluate and discuss AI risks both within and outside of the scientific community.

Position: Fairness Failure in Generative Models is an Evaluation Problem

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 .

Who Should Be Generated? Justifying Demographic Targets in Open-Ended Generation

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.