Anaelia Ovalle

Organizers Of QueerInAI, Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian et al. · allen-ai, cmu

We present Queer in AI as a case study for community-led participatory design in AI. We examine how participatory design and intersectional tenets started and shaped this community's programs over the years. We discuss different challenges that emerged in the process, look at ways this organization has fallen short of operationalizing participatory and intersectional principles, and then assess the organization's impact. Queer in AI provides important lessons and insights for practitioners and theorists of participatory methods broadly through its rejection of hierarchy in favor of decentralization, success at building aid and programs by and for the queer community, and effort to change actors and institutions outside of the queer community. Finally, we theorize how communities like Queer in AI contribute to the participatory design in AI more broadly by fostering cultures of participation in AI, welcoming and empowering marginalized participants, critiquing poor or exploitative participatory practices, and bringing participation to institutions outside of individual research projects. Queer in AI's work serves as a case study of grassroots activism and participatory methods within AI, demonstrating the potential of community-led participatory methods and intersectional praxis, while also providing challenges, case studies, and nuanced insights to researchers developing and using participatory methods.

Irene Solaiman, Zeerak Talat, William Agnew et al. · allen-ai, cmu

Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categories: what can be evaluated in a base system independent of context and what can be evaluated in a societal context. Importantly, this refers to base systems that have no predetermined application or deployment context, including a model itself, as well as system components, such as training data. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to listed generative modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what can be evaluated in a broader societal context, each with its own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm.

Organizers of QueerInAI, Nathan Dennler, Anaelia Ovalle et al. · allen-ai, meta-ai

Bias evaluation benchmarks and dataset and model documentation have emerged as central processes for assessing the biases and harms of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, these auditing processes have been criticized for their failure to integrate the knowledge of marginalized communities and consider the power dynamics between auditors and the communities. Consequently, modes of bias evaluation have been proposed that engage impacted communities in identifying and assessing the harms of AI systems (e.g., bias bounties). Even so, asking what marginalized communities want from such auditing processes has been neglected. In this paper, we ask queer communities for their positions on, and desires from, auditing processes. To this end, we organized a participatory workshop to critique and redesign bias bounties from queer perspectives. We found that when given space, the scope of feedback from workshop participants goes far beyond what bias bounties afford, with participants questioning the ownership, incentives, and efficacy of bounties. We conclude by advocating for community ownership of bounties and complementing bounties with participatory processes (e.g., co-creation).

Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Vagrant Gautam et al. · meta-ai

Intersectionality is a critical framework that, through inquiry and praxis, allows us to examine how social inequalities persist through domains of structure and discipline. Given AI fairness' raison d'etre of "fairness", we argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness. Through a critical review of how intersectionality is discussed in 30 papers from the AI fairness literature, we deductively and inductively: 1) map how intersectionality tenets operate within the AI fairness paradigm and 2) uncover gaps between the conceptualization and operationalization of intersectionality. We find that researchers overwhelmingly reduce intersectionality to optimizing for fairness metrics over demographic subgroups. They also fail to discuss their social context and when mentioning power, they mostly situate it only within the AI pipeline. We: 3) outline and assess the implications of these gaps for critical inquiry and praxis, and 4) provide actionable recommendations for AI fairness researchers to engage with intersectionality in their work by grounding it in AI epistemology.

Pranjal Aggarwal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Seungone Kim et al. · meta-ai

The ability to precisely derive mathematical objects is a core requirement for downstream STEM applications, including mathematics, physics, and chemistry, where reasoning must culminate in formally structured expressions. Yet, current LM evaluations of mathematical and scientific reasoning rely heavily on simplified answer formats such as numerical values or multiple choice options due to the convenience of automated assessment. In this paper we provide three contributions for improving reasoning over mathematical objects: (i) we build and release training data and benchmarks for deriving mathematical objects, the Principia suite; (ii) we provide training recipes with strong LLM-judges and verifiers, where we show that on-policy judge training boosts performance; (iii) we show how on-policy training can also be used to scale test-time compute via aggregation. We find that strong LMs such as Qwen3-235B and o3 struggle on Principia, while our training recipes can bring significant improvements over different LLM backbones, while simultaneously improving results on existing numerical and MCQA tasks, demonstrating cross-format generalization of reasoning abilities.

Genta Indra Winata, David Anugraha, Patrick Amadeus Irawan et al.

Code-switching is a pervasive phenomenon in multilingual communication, yet the robustness of large language models (LLMs) in mixed-language settings remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we present a comprehensive evaluation of LLM capabilities in understanding, reasoning over, and generating code-switched text. We introduce CodeMixQA a novel benchmark with high-quality human annotations, comprising 16 diverse parallel code-switched language-pair variants that span multiple geographic regions and code-switching patterns, and include both original scripts and their transliterated forms. Using this benchmark, we analyze the reasoning behavior of LLMs on code-switched question-answering tasks, shedding light on how models process and reason over mixed-language inputs. We further conduct a systematic evaluation of LLM-generated synthetic code-switched text, focusing on both naturalness and semantic fidelity, and uncover key limitations in current generation capabilities. Our findings reveal persistent challenges in both reasoning and generation under code-switching conditions and provide actionable insights for building more robust multilingual LLMs. We release the dataset and code as open source.

Anaelia Ovalle, Sunipa Dev, Jieyu Zhao et al.

Auditing machine learning-based (ML) healthcare tools for bias is critical to preventing patient harm, especially in communities that disproportionately face health inequities. General frameworks are becoming increasingly available to measure ML fairness gaps between groups. However, ML for health (ML4H) auditing principles call for a contextual, patient-centered approach to model assessment. Therefore, ML auditing tools must be (1) better aligned with ML4H auditing principles and (2) able to illuminate and characterize communities vulnerable to the most harm. To address this gap, we propose supplementing ML4H auditing frameworks with SLOGAN (patient Severity-based LOcal Group biAs detectioN), an automatic tool for capturing local biases in a clinical prediction task. SLOGAN adapts an existing tool, LOGAN (LOcal Group biAs detectioN), by contextualizing group bias detection in patient illness severity and past medical history. We investigate and compare SLOGAN's bias detection capabilities to LOGAN and other clustering techniques across patient subgroups in the MIMIC-III dataset. On average, SLOGAN identifies larger fairness disparities in over 75% of patient groups than LOGAN while maintaining clustering quality. Furthermore, in a diabetes case study, health disparity literature corroborates the characterizations of the most biased clusters identified by SLOGAN. Our results contribute to the broader discussion of how machine learning biases may perpetuate existing healthcare disparities.

Anaelia Ovalle, Evan Czyzycki, Cho-Jui Hsieh

Intentionally crafted adversarial samples have effectively exploited weaknesses in deep neural networks. A standard method in adversarial robustness assumes a framework to defend against samples crafted by minimally perturbing a sample such that its corresponding model output changes. These sensitivity attacks exploit the model's sensitivity toward task-irrelevant features. Another form of adversarial sample can be crafted via invariance attacks, which exploit the model underestimating the importance of relevant features. Previous literature has indicated a tradeoff in defending against both attack types within a strictly L_p bounded defense. To promote robustness toward both types of attacks beyond Euclidean distance metrics, we use metric learning to frame adversarial regularization as an optimal transport problem. Our preliminary results indicate that regularizing over invariant perturbations in our framework improves both invariant and sensitivity defense.

Anaelia Ovalle, Davi Liang, Alicia Boyd

Smartphones are integral to our daily lives and activities, providing us with basic functions like texting and phone calls to more complex motion-based functionalities like navigation, mobile gaming, and fitness-tracking. To facilitate these functionalities, smartphones rely on integrated sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes. These sensors provide personalized measurements that, in turn, contribute to tasks such as analyzing biometric data for mobile health purposes. In addition to benefiting smartphone users, biometric data holds significant value for researchers engaged in biometric identification research. Nonetheless, utilizing this user data for biometric identification tasks, such as gait and gender recognition, raises serious privacy, normative, and ethical concerns, particularly within the queer community. Concerns of algorithmic bias and algorithmically-driven dysphoria surface from a historical backdrop of marginalization, surveillance, harassment, discrimination, and violence against the queer community. In this position paper, we contribute to the timely discourse on safeguarding human rights within AI-driven systems by providing a sense of challenges, tensions, and opportunities for new data protections and biometric collection practices in a way that grapples with the sociotechnical realities of the queer community.

Anaelia Ovalle, Candace Ross, Sebastian Ruder et al.

Large language models demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities through chain-of-thought prompting, but whether this reasoning quality transfers across languages remains underexplored. We introduce a human-validated framework to evaluate whether model-generated reasoning traces logically support their conclusions across languages. Analyzing 65k reasoning traces from GlobalMMLU questions across 6 languages and 6 frontier models, we uncover a critical blind spot: while models achieve high task accuracy, their reasoning can fail to support their conclusions. Reasoning traces in non-Latin scripts show at least twice as much misalignment between their reasoning and conclusions than those in Latin scripts. We develop an error taxonomy through human annotation to characterize these failures, finding they stem primarily from evidential errors (unsupported claims, ambiguous facts) followed by illogical reasoning steps. Our findings demonstrate that current multilingual evaluation practices provide an incomplete picture of model reasoning capabilities and highlight the need for reasoning-aware evaluation frameworks.

Jamelle Watson-Daniels, Himaghna Bhattacharjee, Skyler Wang et al.

While many studies of Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning capabilities emphasize mathematical or technical tasks, few address reasoning about social concepts: the abstract ideas shaping social norms, culture, and institutions. This understudied capability is essential for modern models acting as social agents, yet no systematic evaluation methodology targets it. We introduce SCRuB (Social Concept Reasoning under Rubric-Based Evaluation), a framework designed for this setting of task indeterminacy. Our goal is to measure the degree to which a model reasons about social concepts with the depth and critical rigor of a human expert. SCRuB proceeds in three phases: prompt construction from established sources, response generation by experts and models, and comparative evaluation using a five-dimensional critical thinking rubric. To enable generalization of the pipeline, we introduce a Panel of Disciplinary Perspectives ensemble validated against independent expert judges. We release SCRuBEval (n=4,711 evaluation prompts) and SCRuBAnnotations (300 expert-authored responses and 150 expert comparative judgments from 45 PhD-level scholars). Our results show that frontier models consistently outperform human experts across all five rubric dimensions. Across 1,170 pairwise comparisons, expert judges ranked a model response first in 80.8% of judgments and preferred model responses overall 74.4% of the time. Ultimately, this study provides the first expert-grounded demonstration of evaluation saturation for social concept reasoning: the single-turn exam-style format has reached its ceiling for models and humans alike.

Yixin Wan, Arjun Subramonian, Anaelia Ovalle et al. · meta-ai

The recent advancement of large and powerful models with Text-to-Image (T2I) generation abilities -- such as OpenAI's DALLE-3 and Google's Gemini -- enables users to generate high-quality images from textual prompts. However, it has become increasingly evident that even simple prompts could cause T2I models to exhibit conspicuous social bias in generated images. Such bias might lead to both allocational and representational harms in society, further marginalizing minority groups. Noting this problem, a large body of recent works has been dedicated to investigating different dimensions of bias in T2I systems. However, an extensive review of these studies is lacking, hindering a systematic understanding of current progress and research gaps. We present the first extensive survey on bias in T2I generative models. In this survey, we review prior studies on dimensions of bias: Gender, Skintone, and Geo-Culture. Specifically, we discuss how these works define, evaluate, and mitigate different aspects of bias. We found that: (1) while gender and skintone biases are widely studied, geo-cultural bias remains under-explored; (2) most works on gender and skintone bias investigated occupational association, while other aspects are less frequently studied; (3) almost all gender bias works overlook non-binary identities in their studies; (4) evaluation datasets and metrics are scattered, with no unified framework for measuring biases; and (5) current mitigation methods fail to resolve biases comprehensively. Based on current limitations, we point out future research directions that contribute to human-centric definitions, evaluations, and mitigation of biases. We hope to highlight the importance of studying biases in T2I systems, as well as encourage future efforts to holistically understand and tackle biases, building fair and trustworthy T2I technologies for everyone.

Anaelia Ovalle, Ninareh Mehrabi, Palash Goyal et al. · amazon-science

Gender-inclusive NLP research has documented the harmful limitations of gender binary-centric large language models (LLM), such as the inability to correctly use gender-diverse English neopronouns (e.g., xe, zir, fae). While data scarcity is a known culprit, the precise mechanisms through which scarcity affects this behavior remain underexplored. We discover LLM misgendering is significantly influenced by Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenization, the tokenizer powering many popular LLMs. Unlike binary pronouns, BPE overfragments neopronouns, a direct consequence of data scarcity during tokenizer training. This disparate tokenization mirrors tokenizer limitations observed in multilingual and low-resource NLP, unlocking new misgendering mitigation strategies. We propose two techniques: (1) pronoun tokenization parity, a method to enforce consistent tokenization across gendered pronouns, and (2) utilizing pre-existing LLM pronoun knowledge to improve neopronoun proficiency. Our proposed methods outperform finetuning with standard BPE, improving neopronoun accuracy from 14.1% to 58.4%. Our paper is the first to link LLM misgendering to tokenization and deficient neopronoun grammar, indicating that LLMs unable to correctly treat neopronouns as pronouns are more prone to misgender.

Anaelia Ovalle, Krunoslav Lehman Pavasovic, Louis Martin et al.

Natural-language assistants are designed to provide users with helpful responses while avoiding harmful outputs, largely achieved through alignment to human preferences. Yet there is limited understanding of whether alignment techniques may inadvertently perpetuate or even amplify harmful biases inherited from their pre-aligned base models. This issue is compounded by the choice of bias evaluation benchmarks in popular preference-finetuned models, which predominantly focus on dominant social categories, such as binary gender, thereby limiting insights into biases affecting underrepresented groups. Towards addressing this gap, we center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias in LLMs. Our key contributions include: 1) a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation modalities across leading preference-finetuned LLMs, highlighting critical gaps in gender-diverse representation, 2) systematic evaluation of gender-diverse biases across 16 models spanning Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) stages, uncovering harms popular bias benchmarks fail to detect, and 3) a flexible framework for measuring harmful biases in implicit reward signals applicable to other social contexts. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning (SFT), and can amplify two forms of real-world gender-diverse harms from their base models: stigmatization and gender non-affirmative language. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices, advocating for the adoption of community-informed bias evaluation frameworks to more effectively identify and address underrepresented harms in LLMs.

Martin Mundt, Anaelia Ovalle, Felix Friedrich et al.

In a widely popular analogy by Turing Award Laureate Yann LeCun, machine intelligence has been compared to cake - where unsupervised learning forms the base, supervised learning adds the icing, and reinforcement learning is the cherry on top. We expand this 'cake that is intelligence' analogy from a simple structural metaphor to the full life-cycle of AI systems, extending it to sourcing of ingredients (data), conception of recipes (instructions), the baking process (training), and the tasting and selling of the cake (evaluation and distribution). Leveraging our re-conceptualization, we describe each step's entailed social ramifications and how they are bounded by statistical assumptions within machine learning. Whereas these technical foundations and social impacts are deeply intertwined, they are often studied in isolation, creating barriers that restrict meaningful participation. Our re-conceptualization paves the way to bridge this gap by mapping where technical foundations interact with social outcomes, highlighting opportunities for cross-disciplinary dialogue. Finally, we conclude with actionable recommendations at each stage of the metaphorical AI cake's life-cycle, empowering prospective AI practitioners, users, and researchers, with increased awareness and ability to engage in broader AI discourse.

Anaelia Ovalle, Mehrab Beikzadeh, Parshan Teimouri et al.

Large language models have been useful in expanding mental health care delivery. ChatGPT, in particular, has gained popularity for its ability to generate human-like dialogue. However, data-sensitive domains -- including but not limited to healthcare -- face challenges in using ChatGPT due to privacy and data-ownership concerns. To enable its utilization, we propose a text ambiguation framework that preserves user privacy. We ground this in the task of addressing stress prompted by user-provided texts to demonstrate the viability and helpfulness of privacy-preserved generations. Our results suggest that chatGPT recommendations are still able to be moderately helpful and relevant, even when the original user text is not provided.

Anaelia Ovalle, Palash Goyal, Jwala Dhamala et al.

Transgender and non-binary (TGNB) individuals disproportionately experience discrimination and exclusion from daily life. Given the recent popularity and adoption of language generation technologies, the potential to further marginalize this population only grows. Although a multitude of NLP fairness literature focuses on illuminating and addressing gender biases, assessing gender harms for TGNB identities requires understanding how such identities uniquely interact with societal gender norms and how they differ from gender binary-centric perspectives. Such measurement frameworks inherently require centering TGNB voices to help guide the alignment between gender-inclusive NLP and whom they are intended to serve. Towards this goal, we ground our work in the TGNB community and existing interdisciplinary literature to assess how the social reality surrounding experienced marginalization of TGNB persons contributes to and persists within Open Language Generation (OLG). This social knowledge serves as a guide for evaluating popular large language models (LLMs) on two key aspects: (1) misgendering and (2) harmful responses to gender disclosure. To do this, we introduce TANGO, a dataset of template-based real-world text curated from a TGNB-oriented community. We discover a dominance of binary gender norms reflected by the models; LLMs least misgendered subjects in generated text when triggered by prompts whose subjects used binary pronouns. Meanwhile, misgendering was most prevalent when triggering generation with singular they and neopronouns. When prompted with gender disclosures, TGNB disclosure generated the most stigmatizing language and scored most toxic, on average. Our findings warrant further research on how TGNB harms manifest in LLMs and serve as a broader case study toward concretely grounding the design of gender-inclusive AI in community voices and interdisciplinary literature.

Sunipa Dev, Masoud Monajatipoor, Anaelia Ovalle et al.

Gender is widely discussed in the context of language tasks and when examining the stereotypes propagated by language models. However, current discussions primarily treat gender as binary, which can perpetuate harms such as the cyclical erasure of non-binary gender identities. These harms are driven by model and dataset biases, which are consequences of the non-recognition and lack of understanding of non-binary genders in society. In this paper, we explain the complexity of gender and language around it, and survey non-binary persons to understand harms associated with the treatment of gender as binary in English language technologies. We also detail how current language representations (e.g., GloVe, BERT) capture and perpetuate these harms and related challenges that need to be acknowledged and addressed for representations to equitably encode gender information.

Shayan Fazeli, Davina Zamanzadeh, Anaelia Ovalle et al.

COVID-19 has been devastating the world since the end of 2019 and has continued to play a significant role in major national and worldwide events, and consequently, the news. In its wake, it has left no life unaffected. Having earned the world's attention, social media platforms have served as a vehicle for the global conversation about COVID-19. In particular, many people have used these sites in order to express their feelings, experiences, and observations about the pandemic. We provide a multi-faceted analysis of critical properties exhibited by these conversations on social media regarding the novel coronavirus pandemic. We present a framework for analysis, mining, and tracking the critical content and characteristics of social media conversations around the pandemic. Focusing on Twitter and Reddit, we have gathered a large-scale dataset on COVID-19 social media conversations. Our analyses cover tracking potential reports on virus acquisition, symptoms, conversation topics, and language complexity measures through time and by region across the United States. We also present a BERT-based model for recognizing instances of hateful tweets in COVID-19 conversations, which achieves a lower error-rate than the state-of-the-art performance. Our results provide empirical validation for the effectiveness of our proposed framework and further demonstrate that social media data can be efficiently leveraged to provide public health experts with inexpensive but thorough insight over the course of an outbreak.