Michelle Lin

Carter Buckner, Jennifer Mickel, Nandhini Swaminathan et al.

Public policies are being developed around the world to address privacy, economic, intellectual property, energy, and other risks that AI technologies pose. Involvement from the general public is essential to governance as an accountability and alignment mechanism. However, participating in and impacting policymaking can be challenging for sections of the public that lack extensive networks, lobbying capabilities, and other forms of power. This challenge is especially acute for marginalized communities. In this paper, we present a case study of our organization's efforts to bring participatory design (PD) principles to AI policymaking in the US. We describe our engagements with several US policy bodies, and our participatory development of AI policy for queer people. We highlight challenges with PD practice with marginalized communities, and offer suggestions to alleviate them. We conclude with actionable recommendations for policymakers and other organizers working in marginalized communities.

Jan Batzner, Sree Harsha Nelaturu, Anastassia Kornilova et al.

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

Xiaofeng Zhang, Michelle Lin, Simon Lacoste-Julien et al.

The widespread adoption of generative AI models has raised growing concerns about representational harm and potential discriminatory outcomes. Yet, despite growing literature on this topic, the mechanisms by which bias emerges - especially in unconditional generation - remain disentangled. We define the bias of an attribute as the difference between the probability of its presence in the observed distribution and its expected proportion in an ideal reference distribution. In our analysis, we train a set of unconditional image generative models and adopt a commonly used bias evaluation framework to study bias shift between training and generated distributions. Our experiments reveal that the detected attribute shifts are small. We find that the attribute shifts are sensitive to the attribute classifier used to label generated images in the evaluation framework, particularly when its decision boundaries fall in high-density regions. Our empirical analysis indicates that this classifier sensitivity is often observed in attributes values that lie on a spectrum, as opposed to exhibiting a binary nature. This highlights the need for more representative labeling practices, understanding the shortcomings through greater scrutiny of evaluation frameworks, and recognizing the socially complex nature of attributes when evaluating bias.