Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 137 references

From Fair Representation to Just Recognition in Generative AI

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that generative AI outputs should be held to the standard of recognitional justice—whether they support parity of participation—rather than representational accuracy.

desk verdict A clear conceptual case for replacing accuracy-based representational fairness with Fraser's participatory parity in generative AI, but the standard's practical operation is left to an unspecified public contestation — worth publishing, with that limit named. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12669 v1 pith:6Z3BVZWU submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CY

Severin Engelmann , Daniel Susser This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords representationalfairnessrecognitionaljusticegenerativeAIparityofparticipationvaluealignmentculturalpluralismparticipatorygovernanceethics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Generative AI's expressive power makes questions of how it depicts social groups central to AI fairness, but existing approaches evaluate that depiction for accuracy. This paper argues that accuracy is the wrong target: the real harm is misrecognition, and the standard should be recognitional justice, defined by whether outputs allow all members of society to participate as equals. It shows that even accurate representations can entrench unjust hierarchies, that social groups lack stable boundaries against which accuracy can be measured, and that no one has uncontested authority to decide what counts as misrepresentation. The upshot is that deciding whether an AI output is just cannot be automated or settled by experts; it must be worked out through public contestation, so fairness research should treat accuracy as diagnostic only.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the norm of participatory parity, drawn from the two-dimensional theory of justice, which treats just distribution and just recognition as separate but co-constitutive conditions for equal social standing. In the paper's use, the norm supplies a two-level test: an AI output, or a proposed remedy, is unjust if it lowers one group's standing relative to others, or if the remedy subordinates some members of the group or others. The key move is that the norm is non-monological: it cannot be computed by an algorithmic metric, and its application must be worked out discursively and dialogically through public contestation. This is what carries the argument from accuracy-based evaluation to recognitional justice.

What would settle it

Show a contested AI depiction of a social group where a well-structured public deliberative process either cannot converge on whether the depiction undermines equal standing, or converges only because dominant groups out-vote or out-shout the affected group. For example, run a structured citizens' jury on an image generator's depiction of a religious minority's symbols and observe whether reasoned argument changes verdicts; if the process stays polarized, the account's remedy lacks content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the normative standard for generative AI's representations of social groups should be recognitional justice rather than representational fairness. The deep question is not whether an output is accurate but whether it strengthens or undermines parity of participation—the ability of all members of society to interact with one another as peers. The paper defends this by showing that accuracy-oriented remedies fail in three ways: accurate representations can reproduce unjust social patterns; who decides representational accuracy is politically contested; and fixing a group as a target of optimization essentializes an internally plural, changing culture. Accordingly, inaccuracy is at most a diagnostic indicator of possible misrecognition, not the harm itself. The remedy is not more faithful data or better measurement but collective, contestatory public reasoning about status and equal standing.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's argument stands or falls on the premise that public debate can actually settle when a representation denies people equal standing, despite there being no objective test for equal standing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI fairness evaluations of generative models should treat accuracy as a diagnostic clue, not as the objective to optimize.
  • Interventions should be judged by whether they reduce status subordination, so deliberately non-accurate representations can be just when they repair hierarchies.
  • Participatory governance moves from a nice-to-have to a necessary condition: who is included, who sets the scope, and whether input changes the model become core fairness questions.
  • Cultural and pluralistic alignment benchmarks that rate fidelity to survey data are insufficient; they must also ask whose standing the output supports.
  • The same output can be just or unjust depending on context, so fairness claims cannot be reduced to a static distribution of attributes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper does not develop is to turn the parity standard into a procedural audit: test whether affected communities can contest model outputs and get them changed.
  • If the argument is right, a model that reproduces majority self-understandings with high accuracy may fail recognitional justice even when it scores well on pluralism benchmarks weighted by population frequencies.
  • The same logic could be applied to quality-of-service gaps: when a model serves marginalized language speakers worse, the harm is not only differential quality but a denial of equal standing, entangling distribution and recognition in ways the paper only footnotes.
  • A testable empirical extension would compare the status effects of accuracy-optimized outputs versus outputs shaped through deliberative, participatory processes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that generative AI's representational harms are best understood not as problems of descriptive accuracy ("representational fairness") but as problems of status subordination ("recognitional justice"). Drawing on Nancy Fraser's two-dimensional theory of justice, the authors propose participatory parity as the normative standard against which generative AI outputs should be evaluated: the question is whether outputs strengthen or undermine the ability of all members of society to participate as equals. The paper develops three critiques of accuracy-oriented remedies—accurate representations can perpetuate unjust hierarchies, authority over accurate representation is unresolved, and social groups are too contested and fluid to serve as stable referents—and concludes that judgments about recognitional justice must be worked out discursively and dialogically in public.

Significance. If the paper's central claim holds, it provides a valuable conceptual bridge between political theories of recognition and the fair AI/value alignment literatures, and it sharpens the diagnosis of why accuracy-based fixes are insufficient. The paper is clearly written, carefully structured, and engages responsibly with current work on cultural and pluralistic alignment. Its strengths include a concrete set of examples (doctors/nurses, cultural erasure, persona prompting), a fair characterization of alternative views, and an explicit acknowledgement of the limits of its own proposal. Its main weakness is that the proposed positive standard—participatory parity—is left at a high level of abstraction: the paper does not specify the procedures, participants, or legitimacy conditions for the public contestation it says is required. This makes the contribution primarily diagnostic and programmatic rather than a fully specified governance framework, and it leaves open whether recognitional justice is genuinely more actionable than the accuracy standard it replaces.

major comments (3)
  1. [A Two-Dimensional Theory of Justice] The central claim—that generative AI should be held to the standard of participatory parity rather than representational accuracy—requires that the standard be applicable to concrete outputs. The paper explicitly concedes that "there is no objective marker that signals when parity of participation has been achieved" and that judgments "must be worked out discursively and dialogically," but it does not specify who participates in this contestation, how disagreements are settled, how to prevent dominant groups from controlling the process, or when a verdict is legitimate. The doctors/nurses example illustrates the gap: after noting "reasonable arguments" on both sides, the paper says only that "the issue would need to be decided collectively." Given that the paper's stated goal is to provide "better conceptual and normative tools for governing" generative AI, this underdetermination is load-bearing. The authors should either sketch the minimal procedural and legitimacy conditions for public contestation or explicitly revise the claim to say that participatory parity is a diagnostic ideal rather than a governance standard.
  2. [A Two-Dimensional Theory of Justice; Conclusion] The paper says that "the overarching argument we are advancing in this paper doesn't rest on the details of Fraser's account," yet the Conclusion identifies recognitional justice with participatory parity, a distinctly Fraserian notion. This creates a tension: if the argument does not depend on Fraser's specific framework, what is the minimal content of recognitional justice that remains? If it does depend on Fraser's framework, the paper should engage more directly with well-known objections to participatory parity, such as the difficulty of resolving incommensurable value claims in pluralistic societies. The authors should clarify the relation between Fraser's account and their own normative proposal.
  3. [From Fair Representation to Just Recognition] The critique of participatory approaches in the discussion of authority notes that institutions can retain control over participant selection, scope of deliberation, and final outcomes, and that participation can be tokenistic. The paper responds that "this limitation does not make participation irrelevant" because it exposes political choices. This is a reasonable point, but it does not answer the analogous power-asymmetry problem for the paper's own recommended remedy: public contestation over what undermines parity of participation. In the absence of any account of how marginalized groups can secure a meaningful voice in that contestation, the proposal risks relocating rather than solving the authority problem it identifies in accuracy-based approaches. A brief discussion of conditions under which public contestation can be expected to be non-dominated would materially strengthen the argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in the Introduction: "with respesct" should read "with respect."
  2. [References] The reference to Rauh et al. contains "????" as the year and lacks complete publication details; it should be completed or removed.
  3. [Distribution versus Recognition] The phrase "On this 'consumerist view' view" contains a duplicated word; it should read "On this 'consumerist view',".
  4. [From Fair Representation to Just Recognition] The paper uses "recognitional justice" and "just recognition" interchangeably in places; fixing on a single term would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper imports an external normative standard (Fraser's participatory parity) and applies it to generative AI; its conclusions do not reduce to its premises by construction.

full rationale

The paper makes a conceptual/normative argument, not an empirical derivation or prediction. It draws on Nancy Fraser's externally developed theory of participatory parity as a standard for evaluating generative AI's representational outputs, and it explicitly disclaims reliance on the details of Fraser's account: "the overarching argument we are advancing in this paper doesn't rest on the details of Fraser's account." The central claim—that recognitional justice, rather than representational fairness, should govern generative AI—is supported by arguments against accuracy-based approaches (unstable referents, authority problems, and accuracy's ability to perpetuate unjust hierarchies), none of which are defined in terms of the conclusion. The only self-citation (Engelmann and Movva 2025) appears in a literature-review sentence about pluralistic alignment interventions and is not load-bearing for the paper's normative thesis. There is no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The admitted underdetermination of participatory parity is a acknowledged limitation of the proposed standard, not a circularity in the argument's structure.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted, no new entities are postulated, and the paper does not perform quantitative analysis. Its load-bearing assumptions are normative and sociological premises imported from political theory.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Fraser's two-dimensional theory of justice and participatory parity is an appropriate normative standard for evaluating AI representations.
    The paper imports this from political theory (section 'A Two-Dimensional Theory of Justice') and uses it as the benchmark for just recognition.
  • domain assumption Social groups are internally plural, contested, and not stably bounded, so no independent referent exists against which representational accuracy can be judged.
    Invoked in the critique of accuracy (section 'From Fair Representation to Just Recognition') and grounded in Benhabib and Fraser.
  • domain assumption Generative AI outputs are socially constitutive: they participate in the cultural construction of social groups and can therefore affect participatory parity.
    Assumed in the opening and throughout; the paper does not present empirical evidence that LLM outputs have this effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Fair Representation to Just Recognition in Generative AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6Z3BVZWU

@misc{pith2026260812669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Fair Representation to Just Recognition in Generative AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6Z3BVZWU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12669}
}
read the original abstract

The fair AI/ML literature has long distinguished distributive fairness, concerning how automated systems allocate resources and opportunities, from representational fairness, concerning how they shape the ways individuals and social groups are perceived, understood, and accorded social status. Generative AI is rebalancing these normative dimensions. Unlike predictive systems, large language models (LLMs) and related technologies are fundamentally expressive: their primary function is to convey meaning rather than automate domain-specific decisions. Representational harm has also become central to value alignment, especially in research on what and whose values and perspectives AI systems should represent. Existing approaches to harms in the representation of social groups often appeal to descriptive accuracy, but this strategy has important limitations. For many social groups, no stable or bounded referent exists against which representational accuracy can be judged. It is also unclear who has the authority to decide what counts as misrepresentation, while even accurate representations can reproduce harmful social patterns. The underlying problem, we argue, is therefore not simply misrepresentation but misrecognition. Drawing on political theory, especially Nancy Fraser's account of participatory parity, we show how moving from representational fairness to recognitional justice provides better conceptual and normative tools for governing central fairness challenges in generative AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A.; Ajayi-Nifise, A

    Addy, W. A.; Ajayi-Nifise, A. O.; Bello, B. G.; Tula, S. T.; Odeyemi, O.; and Falaiye, T. 2024. AI in credit scoring: A comprehensive review of models and predictive analytics. Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 18(2): 118--129

    2024

  2. [2]

    Jansen, B

    Amin, D.; Salminen, J.; Ahmed, F.; MH Tervola, S.; Sethi, S.; and J. Jansen, B. 2026. Creating and Evaluating Personas Using Generative AI: A Scoping Review of 81 Articles. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--23

    2026

  3. [3]

    Anderson, E. S. 1999. What Is the Point of Equality? Ethics, 109(2): 287–337

    1999

  4. [5]

    Barocas, S.; Hardt, M.; and Narayanan, A. 2023. Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT press

    2023

  5. [6]

    Benhabib, S. 1999. ``Nous'' et ``les Autres'': The Politics of Complex Cultural Dialogue in a Global Civilization. In Joppke, C.; and Lukes, S., eds., Multicultural Questions, 44--63. Oxford University Press

    1999

  6. [7]

    C.; Gabriel, I.; and Mohamed, S

    Birhane, A.; Isaac, W.; Prabhakaran, V.; Diaz, M.; Elish, M. C.; Gabriel, I.; and Mohamed, S. 2022. Power to the people? Opportunities and challenges for participatory AI. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 1--8

    2022

  7. [8]

    L.; Barocas, S.; Daumé Iii, H.; and Wallach, H

    Blodgett, S. L.; Barocas, S.; Daumé Iii, H.; and Wallach, H. 2020. Language ( Technology ) is Power : A Critical Survey of “ Bias ” in NLP , 2020. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 5454--5476. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics

    2020

  8. [9]

    Chien, J.; and Danks, D. 2024. Beyond behaviorist representational harms: A plan for measurement and mitigation. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 933--946

    2024

Show all 137 references
  1. [11]

    A.; Garcia-Gathright, J.; Pangakis, N

    Corvi, E.; Washington, H.; Reed, S.; Atalla, C.; Chouldechova, A.; Dow, P. A.; Garcia-Gathright, J.; Pangakis, N. J.; Sheng, E.; Vann, D.; et al. 2025. Taxonomizing representational harms using speech act theory. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: AC...

    2025

  2. [12]

    Delgado, F.; Yang, S.; Madaio, M.; and Yang, Q. 2023. The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 1--23

    2023

  3. [14]

    Engelmann, S.; and Movva, R. 2025. LLMs' Pluralistic Compatibility. In EWAF, 344--350

    2025

  4. [15]

    Fraser, N. 2008. Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In Geographic thought, 72--89. Routledge

    2008

  5. [16]

    Fraser, N.; Honneth, A.; Golb, J.; and Golb, J. D. 2003. Fraser- Redistribution or recognition? a political-philosophical exchange, 2003 . London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-648-3 978-1-85984-492-2

    2003

  6. [17]

    Ghosh, S.; Narayanan Venkit, P.; Gautam, S.; Wilson, S.; and Caliskan, A. 2024. Do Generative AI Models Output Harm while Representing Non - Western Cultures : Evidence from A Community - Centered Approach , 2024. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Socie...

    2024

  7. [18]

    Green, B. 2022. Escaping the impossibility of fairness: From formal to substantive algorithmic fairness. Philosophy & Technology, 35(4): 90

    2022

  8. [20]

    A.; and Rosner, D

    Haghighi, N.; Yu, S.; Landay, J. A.; and Rosner, D. 2025. Ontologies in design: How imagining a tree reveals possibilities and assumptions in large language models. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--20

    2025

  9. [21]

    Honneth, A. 2004. Recognition and Justice : Outline of a Plural Theory of Justice . Acta Sociologica, 47(4): 351--364

    2004

  10. [22]

    Hutiri, W.; Papakyriakopoulos, O.; and Xiang, A. 2024. Not my voice! a taxonomy of ethical and safety harms of speech generators. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 359--376

    2024

  11. [23]

    Iser, M. 2013. Recognition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    2013

  12. [24]

    L.; Laird, K.; Wallach, H.; and Barocas, S

    Katzman, J.; Wang, A.; Scheuerman, M.; Blodgett, S. L.; Laird, K.; Wallach, H.; and Barocas, S. 2023. Taxonomizing and measuring representational harms: A look at image tagging. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, 14277--14285

    2023

  13. [25]

    Kelan, E. K. 2024. Algorithmic inclusion: Shaping the predictive algorithms of artificial intelligence in hiring. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(3): 694--707

    2024

  14. [26]

    R.; Whitefield, A.; R \"o ttger, P.; Bean, A.; Margatina, K.; Ciro, J.; Mosquera, R.; Bartolo, M.; Williams, A.; He, H.; et al

    Kirk, H. R.; Whitefield, A.; R \"o ttger, P.; Bean, A.; Margatina, K.; Ciro, J.; Mosquera, R.; Bartolo, M.; Williams, A.; He, H.; et al. 2024. The PRISM alignment dataset: What participatory, representative and individualised human feedback reveals about the subjective and mul...

    2024

  15. [27]

    Maas, J.; and Ingl \'e s, A. M. 2024. Beyond participatory AI. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 932--942

    2024

  16. [28]

    Margalit, A.; Goldblum, N.; and Riley, J. 1996. The decent society, volume 1. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    1996

  17. [29]

    Mitchell, S.; Potash, E.; Barocas, S.; D'Amour, A.; and Lum, K. 2021. Algorithmic Fairness : Choices , Assumptions , and Definitions . Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 8(1): 141--163

    2021

  18. [30]

    Mushtaq, A.; Naeem, R.; Taj, I.; Ghaznavi, I.; and Qadir, J. 2025. Towards Inclusive Educational AI: Auditing Frontier LLMs for Cultural Biases through a Multiplexity Lens. In 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1--10. IEEE

    2025

  19. [32]

    Noble, S. U. 2013. Google search: Hyper-visibility as a means of rendering black women and girls invisible

    2013

  20. [34]

    L.; and Denton, R

    Qadri, R.; Shelby, R.; Bennett, C. L.; and Denton, R. 2023. Ai’s regimes of representation: A community-centered study of text-to-image models in south asia. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 506--517

    2023

  21. [35]

    Rauh, M.; Mellor, J.; Uesato, J.; Huang, P.-S.; Welbl, J.; Weidinger, L.; Dathathri, S.; Glaese, A.; Irving, G.; Gabriel, I.; Isaac, W.; and Hendricks, L. A. ???? Characteristics of Harmful Text : Towards Rigorous Benchmarking of Language Models , 2022

    2022

  22. [36]

    B.; Zhao, B.; and Sawan, M

    Rong, G.; Mendez, A.; Assi, E. B.; Zhao, B.; and Sawan, M. 2020. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: review and prediction case studies. Engineering, 6(3): 291--301

    2020

  23. [37]

    Rorty, A. O. 1994. The hidden politics of cultural identification. Political Theory, 22(1): 152--166

    1994

  24. [38]

    Shetty, A.; Beheshti, A.; Dras, M.; and Naseem, U. 2025. VITAL: A new dataset for benchmarking pluralistic alignment in healthcare. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 22954--22974

    2025

  25. [39]

    D.; Levine, S.; Pyatkin, V.; West, P.; Dziri, N.; Lu, X.; Rao, K.; Bhagavatula, C.; et al

    Sorensen, T.; Jiang, L.; Hwang, J. D.; Levine, S.; Pyatkin, V.; West, P.; Dziri, N.; Lu, X.; Rao, K.; Bhagavatula, C.; et al. 2024 a . Value kaleidoscope: Engaging ai with pluralistic human values, rights, and duties. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli...

    2024

  26. [40]

    H.; Bakker, M

    Sorensen, T.; Mishra, P.; Patel, R.; Tessler, M. H.; Bakker, M. A.; Evans, G.; Gabriel, I.; Goodman, N.; and Rieser, V. 2025. Value profiles for encoding human variation. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2047--2095

    2025

  27. [42]

    Sun, H.; Pei, J.; Choi, M.; and Jurgens, D. 2025. Sociodemographic prompting is not yet an effective approach for simulating subjective judgments with LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2025

  28. [43]

    Taylor, C. 2021. The politics of recognition. In Campus wars, 249--263. Routledge

    2021

  29. [44]

    Taylor, C.; Gutmann, A.; and Taylor, C. 1994. Multiculturalism: examining the politics of recognition. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-03779-0

    1994

  30. [45]

    D.; Klugescheid, K.; Luther, J.; and Matz, S

    Teeny, J. D.; Klugescheid, K.; Luther, J.; and Matz, S. C. 2026. The Promise of Generative AI for Personalized Persuasion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 09637214261424859

    2026

  31. [46]

    V.; Pacchioni, F.; Bellumore, S.; Bosia, M.; and De Micco, F

    Travaini, G. V.; Pacchioni, F.; Bellumore, S.; Bosia, M.; and De Micco, F. 2022. Machine learning and criminal justice: A systematic review of advanced methodology for recidivism risk prediction. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(17): 10594

    2022

  32. [47]

    Wang, A.; Barocas, S.; Laird, K.; and Wallach, H. 2022. Measuring Representational Harms in Image Captioning , 2022. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency , 324--335. Seoul Republic of Korea: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-9352-2

    2022

  33. [48]

    Wang, A.; Morgenstern, J.; and Dickerson, J. P. 2025. Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups. Nature Machine Intelligence, 7(3): 400--411

    2025

  34. [49]

    Weerts, H.; Pfisterer, F.; Feurer, M.; Eggensperger, K.; Bergman, E.; Awad, N.; Vanschoren, J.; Pechenizkiy, M.; Bischl, B.; and Hutter, F. 2024. Can fairness be automated? Guidelines and opportunities for fairness-aware AutoML. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 79:...

    2024

  35. [50]

    Yao, B.; Cai, Z.; Chuang, Y.-S.; Yang, S.; Jiang, M.; Yang, D.; and Hu, J. 2025 a . No preference left behind: Group distributional preference optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, 72961--72979

    2025

  36. [51]

    Yao, J.; Yi, X.; Duan, S.; Wang, J.; Bai, Y.; Huang, M.; Ou, Y.; Li, S.; Zhang, P.; Lu, T.; et al. 2025 b . Value compass benchmarks: A comprehensive, generative and self-evolving platform for llms’ value evaluation. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association...

    2025

  37. [53]

    You, Z.; Lee, H.; Mishra, S.; Jeoung, S.; Mishra, A.; Kim, J.; and Diesner, J. 2024. Beyond binary gender labels: Revealing gender bias in LLMs through gender-neutral name predictions. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing (GeBNLP), 255--268

    2024

  38. [54]

    Young, I. M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton university press

    1990

  39. [55]

    Zhang, L.; Milli, S.; Jusko, K.; Smith, J.; Amos, B.; Bouaziz, W.; Revel, M.; Kussman, J.; Sheynin, Y.; Titus, L.; et al. 2026. Cultivating pluralism in algorithmic monoculture: The community alignment dataset. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 20...

    2026

  40. [56]

    Zhi-Xuan, T.; Carroll, M.; Franklin, M.; and Ashton, H. 2025. Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment: T. Zhi-Xuan et al. Philosophical Studies, 182(7): 1813--1863

    2025

  41. [57]

    Anderson, Elizabeth S. , year=. What Is the Point of Equality? , volume=. Ethics , publisher=. doi:10.1086/233897 , number=

    doi

  42. [58]

    Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances , volume=

    AI in credit scoring: A comprehensive review of models and predictive analytics , author=. Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances , volume=

  43. [59]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02234 , year=

    Llm social simulations are a promising research method , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02234 , year=

    arXiv

  44. [60]

    Human Resource Management Journal , volume=

    Algorithmic inclusion: Shaping the predictive algorithms of artificial intelligence in hiring , author=. Human Resource Management Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  45. [61]

    Engineering , volume=

    Artificial intelligence in healthcare: review and prediction case studies , author=. Engineering , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  46. [62]

    Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , volume=

    Can fairness be automated? Guidelines and opportunities for fairness-aware AutoML , author=. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , volume=

  47. [63]

    Edenberg, Elizabeth and Wood, Alexandra , month = oct, year =. An. Equity and. doi:10.1145/3617694.3623248 , language =

  48. [64]

    , year =

    Fraser, Nancy and Honneth, Axel and Golb, Joel and Golb, Joel D. , year =. Fraser-

  49. [65]

    Fahimi, Miriam and State, Laura and Kasirzadeh, Atoosa , file =. From

  50. [66]

    Measuring

    Lundgard, Alan , month = jan, year =. Measuring. Proceedings of the 2020. doi:10.1145/3351095.3372838 , language =

    2020

  51. [67]

    Philosophy & Technology , author =

    Distribution,. Philosophy & Technology , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s13347-025-00842-3 , language =

    2025 doi

  52. [68]

    Fairness and

    Naudts, Laurens and Vedder, Anton , editor =. Fairness and. The. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1017/9781009367783.006 , language =

    2025 doi

  53. [69]

    First Monday , author =

    Automated decision-making as domination, 2024 , language =. First Monday , author =. 2024 , file =

    2024

  54. [70]

    Naudts, Laurens , month = jun, year =. The. The 2024. doi:10.1145/3630106.3658934 , language =

    2024

  55. [71]

    ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , author =

    What. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1145/3766539 , language =

    2025 doi

  56. [72]

    ``Nous'' et ``les Autres'': The Politics of Complex Cultural Dialogue in a Global Civilization , booktitle =

    Benhabib, Seyla , editor =. ``Nous'' et ``les Autres'': The Politics of Complex Cultural Dialogue in a Global Civilization , booktitle =. 1999 , pages =

    1999

  57. [73]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10915 , year=

    Bias in large language models: Origin, evaluation, and mitigation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10915 , year=

    arXiv

  58. [74]

    Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Not my voice! a taxonomy of ethical and safety harms of speech generators , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2024

  59. [75]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01211 , year=

    A Unified Framework to Quantify Cultural Intelligence of AI , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01211 , year=

  60. [76]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08820 , year=

    Caredio: Cultural alignment of llm via representativeness and distinctiveness guided data optimization , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08820 , year=

  61. [77]

    Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

    The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

  62. [78]

    Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

    Power to the people? Opportunities and challenges for participatory AI , author=. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

  63. [79]

    Zhi-Xuan et al

    Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment: T. Zhi-Xuan et al. , author=. Philosophical Studies , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  64. [80]

    Himmelreich, Johannes and Hsu, Arbie and Lum, Kristian and Veomett, Ellen , month = nov, year =. The. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.02569 , language =

    doi arXiv

  65. [81]

    Justice , url =

    Miller, David , editor =. Justice , url =. The. 2026 , keywords =

    2026

  66. [82]

    A theory of justice , isbn =

    Rawls, John , year =. A theory of justice , isbn =

  67. [83]

    Geographic thought , pages=

    Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation , author=. Geographic thought , pages=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  68. [84]

    1990 , publisher=

    Justice and the Politics of Difference , author=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  69. [85]

    1996 , publisher=

    The decent society , author=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  70. [86]

    Political Theory , volume=

    The hidden politics of cultural identification , author=. Political Theory , volume=. 1994 , publisher=

    1994

  71. [87]

    Acta Sociologica , author =

    Recognition and. Acta Sociologica , author =. 2004 , pages =. doi:10.1177/0001699304048668 , language =

    2004 doi

  72. [88]

    Multiculturalism: examining the politics of recognition , isbn =

    Taylor, Charles and Gutmann, Amy and Taylor, Charles , year =. Multiculturalism: examining the politics of recognition , isbn =

  73. [89]

    2013 , publisher=

    Google search: Hyper-visibility as a means of rendering black women and girls invisible , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  74. [90]

    Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , volume=

    Beyond participatory AI , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , volume=

  75. [91]

    Philosophy & Technology , volume=

    Escaping the impossibility of fairness: From formal to substantive algorithmic fairness , author=. Philosophy & Technology , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  76. [92]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    Taxonomizing representational harms using speech act theory , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    2025

  77. [93]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01056 , year=

    Risks of cultural erasure in large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01056 , year=

    arXiv

  78. [94]

    Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Ontologies in design: How imagining a tree reveals possibilities and assumptions in large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2025

  79. [95]

    Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing (GeBNLP) , pages=

    Beyond binary gender labels: Revealing gender bias in LLMs through gender-neutral name predictions , author=. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing (GeBNLP) , pages=

  80. [96]

    Ulzii-Orshikh, Nasanbayar and Ackerman, Mark and Zhang, Justine , file =. The

  81. [97]

    and Ackerman, Mark S

    Andalibi, Nazanin and Pyle, Cassidy and Barta, Kristen and Xian, Lu and Jacobs, Abigail Z. and Ackerman, Mark S. , month = apr, year =. Conceptualizing. Proceedings of the 2023. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580970 , language =

    2023

  82. [98]

    Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Beyond behaviorist representational harms: A plan for measurement and mitigation , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2024

  83. [99]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05070 , year=

    A roadmap to pluralistic alignment , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05070 , year=

    arXiv

  84. [100]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16380 , year=

    MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16380 , year=

    arXiv

  85. [101]

    Campus wars , pages=

    The politics of recognition , author=. Campus wars , pages=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  86. [102]

    Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Ai’s regimes of representation: A community-centered study of text-to-image models in south asia , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2023

  87. [103]

    Nature Machine Intelligence , volume=

    Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups , author=. Nature Machine Intelligence , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  88. [104]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    The PRISM alignment dataset: What participatory, representative and individualised human feedback reveals about the subjective and multicultural alignment of large language models , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  89. [105]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    No preference left behind: Group distributional preference optimization , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  90. [106]

    Sociotechnical

    Shelby, Renee and Rismani, Shalaleh and Henne, Kathryn and Moon, AJung and Rostamzadeh, Negar and Nicholas, Paul and Yilla-Akbari, N'Mah and Gallegos, Jess and Smart, Andrew and Garcia, Emilio and Virk, Gurleen , month = aug, year =. Sociotechnical. Proceedings of the 2023. do...

    2023

  91. [107]

    Documenting

    Ghosh, Sourojit and Gautam, Sanjana and Venkit, Pranav Narayanan and Ghosh, Avijit , file =. Documenting

  92. [108]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

    Taxonomizing and measuring representational harms: A look at image tagging , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

  93. [109]

    Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Value profiles for encoding human variation , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2025

  94. [110]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Value kaleidoscope: Engaging ai with pluralistic human values, rights, and duties , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  95. [111]

    , author=

    LLMs' Pluralistic Compatibility. , author=. EWAF , pages=

  96. [112]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Cultivating pluralism in algorithmic monoculture: The community alignment dataset , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  97. [113]

    2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , pages=

    Towards Inclusive Educational AI: Auditing Frontier LLMs for Cultural Biases through a Multiplexity Lens , author=. 2025 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , pages=. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  98. [114]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    VITAL: A new dataset for benchmarking pluralistic alignment in healthcare , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  99. [115]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) , pages=

    Value compass benchmarks: A comprehensive, generative and self-evolving platform for llms’ value evaluation , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) , pages=

  100. [116]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.22968 , year=

    Against'softmaxing'culture , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.22968 , year=

    arXiv

  101. [117]

    Current Directions in Psychological Science , pages=

    The Promise of Generative AI for Personalized Persuasion , author=. Current Directions in Psychological Science , pages=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  102. [118]

    Sociodemographic prompting is not yet an effective approach for simulating subjective judgments with LLMs , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume ...

    2025

  103. [119]

    Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Creating and Evaluating Personas Using Generative AI: A Scoping Review of 81 Articles , author=. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2026

  104. [120]

    Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    What people think AI should infer from faces , author=. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2022

  105. [121]

    Recognition , journal =

    Iser, Mattias , year=. Recognition , journal =

  106. [122]

    Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , author =

    Do. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31651 , language =

    2024 doi

  107. [123]

    Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , author =

    “. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31650 , language =

    2024 doi

  108. [124]

    Characteristics of

    Rauh, Maribeth and Mellor, John and Uesato, Jonathan and Huang, Po-Sen and Welbl, Johannes and Weidinger, Laura and Dathathri, Sumanth and Glaese, Amelia and Irving, Geoffrey and Gabriel, Iason and Isaac, William and Hendricks, Lisa Anne , file =. Characteristics of

  109. [125]

    Measuring

    Wang, Angelina and Barocas, Solon and Laird, Kristen and Wallach, Hanna , month = jun, year =. Measuring. 2022. doi:10.1145/3531146.3533099 , language =

    2022

  110. [126]

    Stereotypes and

    Ungless, Eddie and Ross, Bjorn and Lauscher, Anne , year =. Stereotypes and. Findings of the. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.502 , language =

    2023 doi

  111. [127]

    Representational

    Katzman, Jared and Barocas, Solon and Blodgett, Su Lin and Laird, Kristen and Scheuerman, Morgan Klaus and Wallach, Hanna , file =. Representational

  112. [128]

    Language (

    Blodgett, Su Lin and Barocas, Solon and Daumé Iii, Hal and Wallach, Hanna , year =. Language (. Proceedings of the 58th. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485 , language =

    2020 doi

  113. [129]

    arXiv.org , author =

    Stereotype or. arXiv.org , author =. 2024 , file =

    2024

  114. [130]

    Understanding and

    Harvey, Emma and Sheng, Emily and Blodgett, Su Lin and Chouldechova, Alexandra and Garcia-Gathright, Jean and Olteanu, Alexandra and Wallach, Hanna , file =. Understanding and

  115. [131]

    Anthis, Jacy Reese and Lum, Kristian and Ekstrand, Michael and Feller, Avi and Tan, Chenhao , file =. The

  116. [132]

    Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , author =

    Algorithmic. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902 , language =

    2021 doi

  117. [133]

    Learning

    Zemel, Richard , file =. Learning

  118. [134]

    2023 , publisher=

    Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities , author=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  119. [135]

    International journal of environmental research and public health , volume=

    Machine learning and criminal justice: A systematic review of advanced methodology for recidivism risk prediction , author=. International journal of environmental research and public health , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  120. [136]

    Stereotyping

    Blodgett, Su Lin and Lopez, Gilsinia and Olteanu, Alexandra and Sim, Robert and Wallach, Hanna , year =. Stereotyping. Proceedings of the 59th. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.81 , abstract =

    2021 doi

  121. [137]

    Bergman, A. Stevie and Hendricks, Lisa Anne and Rauh, Maribeth and Wu, Boxi and Agnew, William and Kunesch, Markus and Duan, Isabella and Gabriel, Iason and Isaac, William , month = jun, year =. Representation in. 2023. doi:10.1145/3593013.3594019 , abstract =

    2023

  122. [138]

    and Wallach, Hanna , month = mar, year =

    Jacobs, Abigail Z. and Wallach, Hanna , month = mar, year =. Measurement and. Proceedings of the 2021. doi:10.1145/3442188.3445901 , abstract =

    2021

  123. [139]

    Zhao, Dora and Cha, Hannah and J Ryan, Michael and Wang, Angelina and Baker-Ramos, Rachel and Helekahi-Kaiwi, Evyn-Bree and Diego, Rebecca and Hester, Josiah and Yang, Diyi , month = apr, year =. Whose. Proceedings of the 2026. doi:10.1145/3772318.3790958 , abstract =

    2026

  124. [140]

    WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , author =

    A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learning , volume =. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , author =. 2022 , note =. doi:10.1002/widm.1452 , abstract =

    2022 doi

  125. [141]

    2019 , file =

    Proceedings of the 2019. 2019 , file =. doi:10.1137/1.9781611975673 , abstract =

    2019 doi

  126. [142]

    Shen, Aili and Han, Xudong and Cohn, Trevor and Baldwin, Timothy and Frermann, Lea , year =. Does. Findings of the. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-aacl.8 , abstract =

    2022 doi

  127. [143]

    More of the

    Mickel, Jennifer and De-Arteaga, Maria and Liu, Leqi and Tian, Kevin , year =. More of the. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2503.00333 , abstract =

    doi

  128. [144]

    Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , author =

    How. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1609/aies.v8i2.36632 , abstract =

    2025 doi

  129. [145]

    Representativeness in

    Chasalow, Kyla and Levy, Karen , month = mar, year =. Representativeness in. Proceedings of the 2021. doi:10.1145/3442188.3445872 , abstract =

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.