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.
Cowley, Webb and Bale’s critique of within-party sortition argues that lotteries among party members cannot produce a socially representative UK Parliament because party memberships are unrepresentative. Drawing on Party Members Project data, they show that random selection would produce only mixed improvements in desc...
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.
M. Vladimirova, Jean-Yves Franceschi, Thibaut Issenhuth· 0 citations
This work identifies a failure mode not addressed by a stronger model: when the context contains an assertion by a party with an incentive toward optimism - here the sales representative, a witness recorded in the CRM - the model treats the assertion as evidence and clears deals the company's own records deem unaccepta...
It is argued that demonstrating internal incoherence is a necessary precursor to AI alignment as well as a broader phenomenon of epistemic instability in generative AI wherein models fail to reliably maintain coherence with respect to their own prior outputs.
Pegah Nokhiz, Aravinda Kanchana Ruwanpathirana, Helen Nissenbaum· 0 citations
Citizens'assemblies are deliberative bodies intended to form a microcosm of the population. Organizers rely on quota-based stratification and must decide which attributes define resemblance to the public. Yet meeting every quota can still leave a dimension citizens value unrepresented. We study this attribute-selection...
Y. Kalayci, Vasilis Varsamis, Nick Gill et al.· 0 citations
Society constantly has to determine the boundaries of what it deems acceptable, from legislative decisions to the guardrails governing autonomous systems. We initiate the axiomatic study of collective consent: given individuals'attitudes toward options, which options should receive societal consent? We organize our ana...
Chris Dong, Sonja Kraiczy, Rohit Vasishta et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.