Angelina Wang

Sabine Weber, Angelina Wang, Ankush Gupta et al. · meta-ai

Natural language processing (NLP) technologies are rapidly reshaping how language is created, processed, and interpreted by humans. With current and potential applications in hiring, law, healthcare, and other areas that impact people's lives, understanding and mitigating harms towards marginalized groups is critical. In this survey, we examine NLP research papers that explicitly address the relationship between LGBTQIA+ communities and NLP technologies. We systematically review all such papers published in the ACL Anthology up until February 2026 (n=122), to answer the following research questions: (1) What are current research trends? (2) What gaps exist in terms of topics and methods? (3) What areas are open for future work? We find that while the number of papers on queer NLP has grown within the last few years, most papers take a reactive rather than a proactive approach, focusing on shortcomings of existing systems rather than creating new solutions. Our survey uncovers many opportunities for future work, especially regarding stakeholder involvement, intersectionality, interdisciplinarity, and languages other than English. We also offer an outlook from a queer studies perspective, highlighting understudied topics and blind spots in the harms addressed in NLP papers. Beyond being a roadmap of what has been done, this survey is a call to action for work towards more just and inclusive NLP technologies.

Angelina Wang, Solon Barocas, Kristen Laird et al.

Previous work has largely considered the fairness of image captioning systems through the underspecified lens of "bias." In contrast, we present a set of techniques for measuring five types of representational harms, as well as the resulting measurements obtained for two of the most popular image captioning datasets using a state-of-the-art image captioning system. Our goal was not to audit this image captioning system, but rather to develop normatively grounded measurement techniques, in turn providing an opportunity to reflect on the many challenges involved. We propose multiple measurement techniques for each type of harm. We argue that by doing so, we are better able to capture the multi-faceted nature of each type of harm, in turn improving the (collective) validity of the resulting measurements. Throughout, we discuss the assumptions underlying our measurement approach and point out when they do not hold.

Angelina Wang, Vikram V. Ramaswamy, Olga Russakovsky

Research in machine learning fairness has historically considered a single binary demographic attribute; however, the reality is of course far more complicated. In this work, we grapple with questions that arise along three stages of the machine learning pipeline when incorporating intersectionality as multiple demographic attributes: (1) which demographic attributes to include as dataset labels, (2) how to handle the progressively smaller size of subgroups during model training, and (3) how to move beyond existing evaluation metrics when benchmarking model fairness for more subgroups. For each question, we provide thorough empirical evaluation on tabular datasets derived from the US Census, and present constructive recommendations for the machine learning community. First, we advocate for supplementing domain knowledge with empirical validation when choosing which demographic attribute labels to train on, while always evaluating on the full set of demographic attributes. Second, we warn against using data imbalance techniques without considering their normative implications and suggest an alternative using the structure in the data. Third, we introduce new evaluation metrics which are more appropriate for the intersectional setting. Overall, we provide substantive suggestions on three necessary (albeit not sufficient!) considerations when incorporating intersectionality into machine learning.

Angelina Wang, Olga Russakovsky

Transfer learning is beneficial by allowing the expressive features of models pretrained on large-scale datasets to be finetuned for the target task of smaller, more domain-specific datasets. However, there is a concern that these pretrained models may come with their own biases which would propagate into the finetuned model. In this work, we investigate bias when conceptualized as both spurious correlations between the target task and a sensitive attribute as well as underrepresentation of a particular group in the dataset. Under both notions of bias, we find that (1) models finetuned on top of pretrained models can indeed inherit their biases, but (2) this bias can be corrected for through relatively minor interventions to the finetuning dataset, and often with a negligible impact to performance. Our findings imply that careful curation of the finetuning dataset is important for reducing biases on a downstream task, and doing so can even compensate for bias in the pretrained model.

Nicole Meister, Dora Zhao, Angelina Wang et al.

Gender biases are known to exist within large-scale visual datasets and can be reflected or even amplified in downstream models. Many prior works have proposed methods for mitigating gender biases, often by attempting to remove gender expression information from images. To understand the feasibility and practicality of these approaches, we investigate what $\textit{gender artifacts}$ exist within large-scale visual datasets. We define a $\textit{gender artifact}$ as a visual cue that is correlated with gender, focusing specifically on those cues that are learnable by a modern image classifier and have an interpretable human corollary. Through our analyses, we find that gender artifacts are ubiquitous in the COCO and OpenImages datasets, occurring everywhere from low-level information (e.g., the mean value of the color channels) to the higher-level composition of the image (e.g., pose and location of people). Given the prevalence of gender artifacts, we claim that attempts to remove gender artifacts from such datasets are largely infeasible. Instead, the responsibility lies with researchers and practitioners to be aware that the distribution of images within datasets is highly gendered and hence develop methods which are robust to these distributional shifts across groups.

Anka Reuel, Avijit Ghosh, Jenny Chim et al.

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor practices remain uneven across the AI ecosystem. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of both first-party and third-party social impact evaluation reporting across a wide range of model developers. Our study examines 186 first-party release reports and 183 post-release evaluation sources, and complements this quantitative analysis with interviews of model developers. We find a clear division of evaluation labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and has declined over time in key areas such as environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators including academic researchers, nonprofits, and independent organizations provide broader and more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, this complementarity has limits. Only model developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, financial costs, and training infrastructure, yet interviews reveal that these disclosures are often deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or regulatory compliance. Our findings indicate that current evaluation practices leave major gaps in assessing AI's societal impacts, highlighting the urgent need for policies that promote developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure to aggregate and compare third-party evaluations in a consistent and accessible way.

Laya Iyer, Angelina Wang, Sanmi Koyejo

Advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled significant capabilities in audio processing, resulting in state-of-the-art models now known as Large Audio Language Models (LALMs). However, minimal work has been done to measure audio understanding beyond automatic speech recognition (ASR). This paper closes that gap by proposing a benchmark suite, SCENEBench (Spatial, Cross-lingual, Environmental, Non-speech Evaluation), that targets a broad form of audio comprehension across four real-world categories: background sound understanding, noise localization, cross-linguistic speech understanding, and vocal characterizer recognition. These four categories are selected based on understudied needs from accessibility technology and industrial noise monitoring. In addition to performance, we also measure model latency. The purpose of this benchmark suite is to assess audio beyond just what words are said - rather, how they are said and the non-speech components of the audio. Because our audio samples are synthetically constructed (e.g., by overlaying two natural audio samples), we further validate our benchmark against 20 natural audio items per task, sub-sampled from existing datasets to match our task criteria, to assess ecological validity. We assess five state-of-the-art LALMs and find critical gaps: performance varies across tasks, with some tasks performing below random chance and others achieving high accuracy. These results provide direction for targeted improvements in model capabilities.

Judy Hanwen Shen, Ken Liu, Angelina Wang et al.

Data transparency has emerged as a rallying cry for addressing concerns about AI: data quality, privacy, and copyright chief among them. Yet while these calls are crucial for accountability, current transparency policies often fall short of their intended aims. Similar to nutrition facts for food, policies aimed at nutrition facts for AI currently suffer from a limited consideration of research on effective disclosures. We offer an institutional perspective and identify three common fallacies in policy implementations of data disclosures for AI. First, many data transparency proposals exhibit a specification gap between the stated goals of data transparency and the actual disclosures necessary to achieve such goals. Second, reform attempts exhibit an enforcement gap between required disclosures on paper and enforcement to ensure compliance in fact. Third, policy proposals manifest an impact gap between disclosed information and meaningful changes in developer practices and public understanding. Informed by the social science on transparency, our analysis identifies affirmative paths for transparency that are effective rather than merely symbolic.

Shira Gur-Arieh, Angelina Wang, Sina Fazelpour

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to make sense of ambiguous, open-textured, value-laden terms. Platforms routinely rely on LLMs for content moderation, asking them to label text based on disputed concepts like "hate speech" or "incitement"; hiring managers may use LLMs to rank who counts as "qualified"; and AI labs increasingly train models to self-regulate under constitutional-style ambiguous principles such as "biased" or "legitimate". This paper introduces ambiguity collapse: a phenomenon that occurs when an LLM encounters a term that genuinely admits multiple legitimate interpretations, yet produces a singular resolution, in ways that bypass the human practices through which meaning is ordinarily negotiated, contested, and justified. Drawing on interdisciplinary accounts of ambiguity as a productive epistemic resource, we develop a taxonomy of the epistemic risks posed by ambiguity collapse at three levels: process (foreclosing opportunities to deliberate, develop cognitive skills, and shape contested terms), output (distorting the concepts and reasons agents act upon), and ecosystem (reshaping shared vocabularies, interpretive norms, and how concepts evolve over time). We illustrate these risks through three case studies, and conclude by sketching multi-layer mitigation principles spanning training, institutional deployment design, interface affordances, and the management of underspecified prompts, with the goal of designing systems that surface, preserve, and responsibly govern ambiguity.

Jennah Gosciak, Luke Boyce, Angelina Wang et al.

Cities are increasingly turning to large-scale data analysis and machine learning to make consequential decisions. While the algorithmic fairness community has focused on analyzing the risks and benefits associated with these complex methods, there has been much less scrutiny of the many simpler, but still widely used, data-driven tools that support government decision-making in a variety of settings. In this work, we study hand-crafted indices for geographic targeting and decision-making in emergency management -- a field responsible for coordinating preparedness and response efforts to hazards ranging from natural disasters to human threats. Indices, which capture abstract principles and overarching priorities (e.g., reducing social vulnerability), are low-complexity models that statistically aggregate chosen variables. They are generally flexible and interpretable, but can also be sensitive to key design choices and require strong assumptions. Through a case study of decision-making for extreme heat emergencies in NYC, we examine the challenges that practitioners may face in selecting an index for preparedness and response actions. We map empirical findings from index-based simulations to concerns related to validity and reliability from the measurement literature and show via sensitivity analyses that different reasonable choices of input variables or spatial scale can result in substantive differences to index risk scores, thereby affecting downstream government decision-making. We contrast these challenges with considerations for developing predictive algorithms that more narrowly relate to concrete, measurable outcomes. Ultimately, we provide generalizable recommendations that practitioners and public-sector technologists can use for navigating the trade-offs between indices and predictive algorithms in other government settings.

Dora Zhao, Hannah Cha, Michael J. Ryan et al.

Although generative AI is being deployed into classrooms with promises of aiding teachers, educators caution that these tools can have unintended pedagogical repercussions, including cultural misrepresentation and bias. These concerns are heightened in low-resource language and Indigenous education settings, where AI systems frequently underperform. We investigate these challenges in Hawai`i, where public schools operate under a statewide mandate to integrate Hawaiian language and culture into education. Through four co-design workshops with 22 public school educators, we surfaced concerns about using generative AI in educational settings, particularly around cultural misrepresentation, and corresponding designs for auditing tools that address these issues. We find that educators envision tools grounded in specific Hawaiian cultural values and practices, such as tracing the genealogy of knowledge in source materials. Building on these insights, we conceptualize AI auditing as a community-oriented process rather than the work of isolated individuals, and discuss implications for designing auditing tools.

Angelina Wang, Olga Russakovsky

Mitigating bias in machine learning systems requires refining our understanding of bias propagation pathways: from societal structures to large-scale data to trained models to impact on society. In this work, we focus on one aspect of the problem, namely bias amplification: the tendency of models to amplify the biases present in the data they are trained on. A metric for measuring bias amplification was introduced in the seminal work by Zhao et al. (2017); however, as we demonstrate, this metric suffers from a number of shortcomings including conflating different types of bias amplification and failing to account for varying base rates of protected attributes. We introduce and analyze a new, decoupled metric for measuring bias amplification, $\text{BiasAmp}_{\rightarrow}$ (Directional Bias Amplification). We thoroughly analyze and discuss both the technical assumptions and normative implications of this metric. We provide suggestions about its measurement by cautioning against predicting sensitive attributes, encouraging the use of confidence intervals due to fluctuations in the fairness of models across runs, and discussing the limitations of what this metric captures. Throughout this paper, we work to provide an interrogative look at the technical measurement of bias amplification, guided by our normative ideas of what we want it to encompass. Code is located at https://github.com/princetonvisualai/directional-bias-amp

Angelina Wang, Alexander Liu, Ryan Zhang et al.

Machine learning models are known to perpetuate and even amplify the biases present in the data. However, these data biases frequently do not become apparent until after the models are deployed. Our work tackles this issue and enables the preemptive analysis of large-scale datasets. REVISE (REvealing VIsual biaSEs) is a tool that assists in the investigation of a visual dataset, surfacing potential biases along three dimensions: (1) object-based, (2) person-based, and (3) geography-based. Object-based biases relate to the size, context, or diversity of the depicted objects. Person-based metrics focus on analyzing the portrayal of people within the dataset. Geography-based analyses consider the representation of different geographic locations. These three dimensions are deeply intertwined in how they interact to bias a dataset, and REVISE sheds light on this; the responsibility then lies with the user to consider the cultural and historical context, and to determine which of the revealed biases may be problematic. The tool further assists the user by suggesting actionable steps that may be taken to mitigate the revealed biases. Overall, the key aim of our work is to tackle the machine learning bias problem early in the pipeline. REVISE is available at https://github.com/princetonvisualai/revise-tool

Xuechunzi Bai, Angelina Wang, Ilia Sucholutsky et al.

Large language models (LLMs) can pass explicit social bias tests but still harbor implicit biases, similar to humans who endorse egalitarian beliefs yet exhibit subtle biases. Measuring such implicit biases can be a challenge: as LLMs become increasingly proprietary, it may not be possible to access their embeddings and apply existing bias measures; furthermore, implicit biases are primarily a concern if they affect the actual decisions that these systems make. We address both challenges by introducing two new measures of bias: LLM Implicit Bias, a prompt-based method for revealing implicit bias; and LLM Decision Bias, a strategy to detect subtle discrimination in decision-making tasks. Both measures are based on psychological research: LLM Implicit Bias adapts the Implicit Association Test, widely used to study the automatic associations between concepts held in human minds; and LLM Decision Bias operationalizes psychological results indicating that relative evaluations between two candidates, not absolute evaluations assessing each independently, are more diagnostic of implicit biases. Using these measures, we found pervasive stereotype biases mirroring those in society in 8 value-aligned models across 4 social categories (race, gender, religion, health) in 21 stereotypes (such as race and criminality, race and weapons, gender and science, age and negativity). Our prompt-based LLM Implicit Bias measure correlates with existing language model embedding-based bias methods, but better predicts downstream behaviors measured by LLM Decision Bias. These new prompt-based measures draw from psychology's long history of research into measuring stereotype biases based on purely observable behavior; they expose nuanced biases in proprietary value-aligned LLMs that appear unbiased according to standard benchmarks.

Laura Weidinger, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Hanna Wallach et al.

There is an increasing imperative to anticipate and understand the performance and safety of generative AI systems in real-world deployment contexts. However, the current evaluation ecosystem is insufficient: Commonly used static benchmarks face validity challenges, and ad hoc case-by-case audits rarely scale. In this piece, we advocate for maturing an evaluation science for generative AI systems. While generative AI creates unique challenges for system safety engineering and measurement science, the field can draw valuable insights from the development of safety evaluation practices in other fields, including transportation, aerospace, and pharmaceutical engineering. In particular, we present three key lessons: Evaluation metrics must be applicable to real-world performance, metrics must be iteratively refined, and evaluation institutions and norms must be established. Applying these insights, we outline a concrete path toward a more rigorous approach for evaluating generative AI systems.

Olawale Salaudeen, Anka Reuel, Ahmed Ahmed et al.

While the capabilities and utility of AI systems have advanced, rigorous norms for evaluating these systems have lagged. Grand claims, such as models achieving general reasoning capabilities, are supported with model performance on narrow benchmarks, like performance on graduate-level exam questions, which provide a limited and potentially misleading assessment. We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence. For instance, our framework helps determine whether performance on a mathematical benchmark is an indication of the ability to solve problems on math tests or instead indicates a broader ability to reason. Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning, where various stakeholders provide measurements and evaluations that downstream users use to validate their claims and decisions. At the same time, our framework also informs the construction of evaluations designed to speak to the validity of the relevant claims. By leveraging psychometrics' breakdown of validity, evaluations can prioritize the most critical facets for a given claim, improving empirical utility and decision-making efficacy. We illustrate our framework through detailed case studies of vision and language model evaluations, highlighting how explicitly considering validity strengthens the connection between evaluation evidence and the claims being made.

Angelina Wang, Michelle Phan, Daniel E. Ho et al.

Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted the mathematically convenient perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). However, we contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm assessments (e.g., referring to girls as ``terrorists'' may be less harmful than referring to Muslim people as such). Thus, in contrast to most fairness work, we study fairness through the perspective of treating people differently -- when it is contextually appropriate to. We first introduce an important distinction between descriptive (fact-based), normative (value-based), and correlation (association-based) benchmarks. This distinction is significant because each category requires separate interpretation and mitigation tailored to its specific characteristics. Then, we present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions that enables us to assess difference awareness. Finally, we show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension to fairness where existing bias mitigation strategies may backfire.

Lydia T. Liu, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Angela Zhou et al.

Many automated decision systems (ADS) are designed to solve prediction problems -- where the goal is to learn patterns from a sample of the population and apply them to individuals from the same population. In reality, these prediction systems operationalize holistic policy interventions in deployment. Once deployed, ADS can shape impacted population outcomes through an effective policy change in how decision-makers operate, while also being defined by past and present interactions between stakeholders and the limitations of existing organizational, as well as societal, infrastructure and context. In this work, we consider the ways in which we must shift from a prediction-focused paradigm to an interventionist paradigm when considering the impact of ADS within social systems. We argue this requires a new default problem setup for ADS beyond prediction, to instead consider predictions as decision support, final decisions, and outcomes. We highlight how this perspective unifies modern statistical frameworks and other tools to study the design, implementation, and evaluation of ADS systems, and point to the research directions necessary to operationalize this paradigm shift. Using these tools, we characterize the limitations of focusing on isolated prediction tasks, and lay the foundation for a more intervention-oriented approach to developing and deploying ADS.

Angelina Wang, Daniel E. Ho, Sanmi Koyejo

Standard offline evaluations for language models -- a series of independent, state-less inferences made by models -- fail to capture how language models actually behave in practice, where personalization fundamentally alters model behavior. For instance, identical benchmark questions to the same language model can produce markedly different responses when prompted to a state-less system, in one user's chat session, or in a different user's chat session. In this work, we provide empirical evidence showcasing this phenomenon by comparing offline evaluations to field evaluations conducted by having 800 real users of ChatGPT and Gemini pose benchmark and other provided questions to their chat interfaces.

Alexandra Olteanu, Su Lin Blodgett, Agathe Balayn et al. · microsoft-research

In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor -- such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about AI capabilities. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception -- in addition to a more expansive understanding of (1) methodological rigor -- should include aspects related to (2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); (3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); (4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); (5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and (6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also aim to provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders.

Angelina Wang

A key value proposition of machine learning is generalizability: the same methods and model architecture should be able to work across different domains and different contexts. While powerful, this generalization can sometimes go too far, and miss the importance of the specifics. In this work, we look at how fair machine learning has often treated as interchangeable the identity axis along which discrimination occurs. In other words, racism is measured and mitigated the same way as sexism, as ableism, as ageism. Disciplines outside of computer science have pointed out both the similarities and differences between these different forms of oppression, and in this work we draw out the implications for fair machine learning. While certainly not all aspects of fair machine learning need to be tailored to the specific form of oppression, there is a pressing need for greater attention to such specificity than is currently evident. Ultimately, context specificity can deepen our understanding of how to build more fair systems, widen our scope to include currently overlooked harms, and, almost paradoxically, also help to narrow our scope and counter the fear of an infinite number of group-specific methods of analysis.

Angelina Wang, Xuechunzi Bai, Solon Barocas et al. · microsoft-research

As machine learning applications proliferate, we need an understanding of their potential for harm. However, current fairness metrics are rarely grounded in human psychological experiences of harm. Drawing on the social psychology of stereotypes, we use a case study of gender stereotypes in image search to examine how people react to machine learning errors. First, we use survey studies to show that not all machine learning errors reflect stereotypes nor are equally harmful. Then, in experimental studies we randomly expose participants to stereotype-reinforcing, -violating, and -neutral machine learning errors. We find stereotype-reinforcing errors induce more experientially (i.e., subjectively) harmful experiences, while having minimal changes to cognitive beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. This experiential harm impacts women more than men. However, certain stereotype-violating errors are more experientially harmful for men, potentially due to perceived threats to masculinity. We conclude that harm cannot be the sole guide in fairness mitigation, and propose a nuanced perspective depending on who is experiencing what harm and why.

Dora Zhao, Angelina Wang, Olga Russakovsky

Image captioning is an important task for benchmarking visual reasoning and for enabling accessibility for people with vision impairments. However, as in many machine learning settings, social biases can influence image captioning in undesirable ways. In this work, we study bias propagation pathways within image captioning, focusing specifically on the COCO dataset. Prior work has analyzed gender bias in captions using automatically-derived gender labels; here we examine racial and intersectional biases using manual annotations. Our first contribution is in annotating the perceived gender and skin color of 28,315 of the depicted people after obtaining IRB approval. Using these annotations, we compare racial biases present in both manual and automatically-generated image captions. We demonstrate differences in caption performance, sentiment, and word choice between images of lighter versus darker-skinned people. Further, we find the magnitude of these differences to be greater in modern captioning systems compared to older ones, thus leading to concerns that without proper consideration and mitigation these differences will only become increasingly prevalent. Code and data is available at https://princetonvisualai.github.io/imagecaptioning-bias .

Angelina Wang, Thanard Kurutach, Kara Liu et al.

Planning for robotic manipulation requires reasoning about the changes a robot can affect on objects. When such interactions can be modelled analytically, as in domains with rigid objects, efficient planning algorithms exist. However, in both domestic and industrial domains, the objects of interest can be soft, or deformable, and hard to model analytically. For such cases, we posit that a data-driven modelling approach is more suitable. In recent years, progress in deep generative models has produced methods that learn to `imagine' plausible images from data. Building on the recent Causal InfoGAN generative model, in this work we learn to imagine goal-directed object manipulation directly from raw image data of self-supervised interaction of the robot with the object. After learning, given a goal observation of the system, our model can generate an imagined plan -- a sequence of images that transition the object into the desired goal. To execute the plan, we use it as a reference trajectory to track with a visual servoing controller, which we also learn from the data as an inverse dynamics model. In a simulated manipulation task, we show that separating the problem into visual planning and visual tracking control is more sample efficient and more interpretable than alternative data-driven approaches. We further demonstrate our approach on learning to imagine and execute in 3 environments, the final of which is deformable rope manipulation on a PR2 robot.

William Wang, Angelina Wang, Aviv Tamar et al.

The discriminative approach to classification using deep neural networks has become the de-facto standard in various fields. Complementing recent reservations about safety against adversarial examples, we show that conventional discriminative methods can easily be fooled to provide incorrect labels with very high confidence to out of distribution examples. We posit that a generative approach is the natural remedy for this problem, and propose a method for classification using generative models. At training time, we learn a generative model for each class, while at test time, given an example to classify, we query each generator for its most similar generation, and select the class corresponding to the most similar one. Our approach is general and can be used with expressive models such as GANs and VAEs. At test time, our method accurately "knows when it does not know," and provides resilience to out of distribution examples while maintaining competitive performance for standard examples.