Research Papers

Gender inequality remains a persistent structural feature of the labour market, shaping women's lifetime earnings and economic security. As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms organisational practices, there is growing concern that existing disparities may be unintentionally amplified through task automation, unequal access to upskilling opportunities, and differential returns obtained from technological change. In this paper, we examine how exposure to AI-driven innovation varies across male- and female-dominated occupations, with particular attention to differences across the skill and wage distribution. Using a novel dataset that links occupational characteristics to measures of AI exposure, we analyse how recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and broader AI technologies are distributed across the labour market. Our findings show that, while AI exposure is generally concentrated in higher-skilled and higher-paid occupations for male-dominated occupations, female-dominated occupations display relatively uniform levels of exposure across both high-skilled, high-paid, and low-skilled, low-paid occupations. Moreover, we find that LLM-related exposure is higher in female-dominated occupations, while exposure to broader AI innovation remains more concentrated in male-dominated occupations. A triangulation of these results with existing literature suggests that women, particularly those in the most vulnerable positions (lower-skilled and lower-paid female-dominated occupations), may face greater exposure to forms of AI associated with task automation, job restructuring, reduction of wages and limited career progression.

Bangla, the seventh most spoken language in the world, exhibits significant regional dialectal diversity, with dialects such as Barishal, Chattogram, Sylhet, Noakhali, and Mymensingh differing in lexical, morphological, and syntactic characteristics. These variations pose substantial challenges for Named Entity Recognition (NER), limiting the generalization of models trained on Standard Bangla or a single regional dialect. This paper presents a cross-dialect Bangla NER framework using the publicly available ANCHOLIK-NER dataset, comprising 17,405 annotated sentences and 101,817 tokens across five major Bangla regional dialects. A Leave-One-Dialect-Out Cross-Validation (LODOCV) strategy is adopted, training models on four dialects and evaluating on the remaining unseen dialect. Eight pretrained transformer-based models, including BanglaBERT, MuRIL, XLM-RoBERTa, and Multilingual-E5, are evaluated under identical experimental settings. Multilingual-E5 Large achieves the highest F1-score in every fold, peaking at 97.26% on Mymensingh and reaching its lowest, 82.38%, on Chattogram, the most challenging target dialect. To improve interpretability, Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) are applied to word-level predictions, revealing that the model's decisions are driven primarily by the surface form of the target entity word itself rather than by surrounding sentence context. These findings establish a benchmark for cross-dialect Bangla NER and demonstrate the effectiveness of transformer-based transfer learning for low-resource regional dialects, while highlighting the surface-form dependence of current models as a direction for future work.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as housing screening. While alignment techniques mitigate explicit racial bias in generated text, they often leave covert attitudinal associations in internal probability distributions untouched. Adapting the matched-guise sociolinguistic paradigm, we examine covert dialect bias in housing-related social judgments across four varieties: Standard American English (SAE), African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Nigerian Standard English (NSE), and Nigerian Pidgin (NP). AAVE reflects the racialized dialect studied in prior covert-bias evaluations, whereas NSE and NP represent Black African, postcolonial varieties absent from this literature. Using 260 meaning-matched sentence quadruples and log-probability scoring over housing-relevant adjectives, we probe ten open-weight LLMs across three contexts varying in social proximity: tenant screening, neighbor acceptance, and roommate selection. Across all ten models, AAVE and NP are consistently associated with more negative adjectives than SAE, with NP penalized most severely. Crucially, each dialect is penalized via distinct stereotype clusters rather than a generic non-standard category. NSE, which carries institutional prestige, displays a context-dependent shift: favored over SAE in formal tenant screening but increasingly penalized as social proximity grows. Our findings reveal that LLMs inherit covert dialect bias along both racial identity and prestige dimensions, echoing documented human housing discrimination and demonstrating its reach across postcolonial English varieties.

Open-weight large language models are rapidly entering hiring pipelines, yet their discriminatory failure modes -- and the regulatory exposure these create under the EU AI Act high-risk classification (Annex III) and U.S. EEOC adverse-impact analysis -- remain poorly understood. We present the first systematic, multi-model audit of open-weight LLMs that treats job-posting language as the primary experimental variable, evaluating six models (Llama 3.2, Mistral, Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Phi 3, DeepSeek-R1) across four controlled experiments that jointly probe recruiter-simulation and job-seeker-simulation tasks. We find that (1) agentic posting language depresses recruiter recommendation scores for female candidates (r_rb = 0.309, p_Bonf = 7x10^-5; model-fixed-effects r_rb = 0.448), while communal language partially reverses the penalty; and (2) coded-exclusion language suppresses non-White recruiter scores at large effect sizes (r_rb = 0.646-0.758) and, on the job-seeker side, selectively deters non-White personas from expressing interest -- operationalizing a chilling-effect mechanism at scale. A label-ablation experiment isolates the explicit demographic persona label as the primary causal driver, and Word Embedding Association Tests corroborate these findings at the representational level (d = 1.01-1.45 under Caliskan et al.'s multi-word gender attribute lists). We translate these results into a concrete pre-deployment audit protocol -- posting-vocabulary scoring, persona-conditioned LLM probing, and adverse-impact flagging against the four-fifths threshold -- that operationalizes the documentation and risk-management obligations Annex III imposes on high-risk AI in recruitment.

The current trend of digitalisation has revolutionised the organisation of work and the way it is measured and performed across the globe, with AI becoming more common for managing labour and performance, as well as employee communication. In African organisations, where there is increasing adoption of remote work, hybrid models of work, digital collaboration, and data-based HR management, the notion of silent quitting has become more relevant, defined as worker disengagement when employees are still doing their job but do not put any effort into achieving good performance and exhibiting any emotion. This paper investigates how AI-driven feedback mechanisms, including sentiment analysis systems, pulse surveys, chatbots, engagement dashboards, and predictive analytics, are changing African workplaces through offering continuous listening, instant performance information and proactive engagement with employees. The study also explores how AI can assist organisations in identifying early disengagement and enable intervention and better employee communication in both private and public sector organisations in Africa. At the same time, we address the challenges of socioeconomic development and governance posed by AI implementation in developing countries, including digital inequality, infrastructure shortcomings, privacy concerns, algorithmic bias, and the risk of workplace surveillance. By situating silent quitting within wider debates on digital labour and automation, the paper contributes an African-centred perspective to discussions on the future of work and offers practical recommendations for HR professionals, managers, policymakers, and technology developers seeking responsible, context-sensitive approaches to workplace transformation across the continent.

How Humans and LLMs Read Gender into "Gender-Neutral" Physical Descriptions

Yingjia Wan, Lin Lin, Elisa Kreiss

When foundation models describe people, recent work in AI fairness, accessibility, and ethics recommends avoiding inferred identity labels (e.g., "she", "his") in favor of seemingly "objective" physical descriptions (e.g., "short hair", "a defined jawline"). Yet whether such descriptive language achieves gender-neutral communication remains an open empirical question. To study this, we introduce GAPA (Gender Associations of Physical Attributes), a dataset of 316 common physical attributes drawn from diverse sources, paired with 14,706 gender-association ratings from 304 US-based annotators. Results show that physical descriptions carry structured and graded gender associations among readers, with more consistent and distinctive associations for women and men than for non-binary identities. Next, we evaluate 16 LLMs across model families, sizes, and post-training variants against human ratings. The models partially recover human associations but exhibit systematic alignment biases, including compressed rating distributions, weaker alignment for associations with men, and asymmetric abstention that disproportionately targets the non-binary category. Finally, we release the best-performing proxy model trained to predict humans' gender associations of descriptive language and demonstrate its utility through a sociolinguistic analysis of character descriptions in LitBank. Together, our findings provide the first empirical evidence that seemingly "objective" physical descriptions can retain systematic gender associations in human interpretation, and uncover systematic patterns of model-human misalignment. This challenges the assumption that replacing explicit gender labels with physical descriptions necessarily yields gender-neutral communication, and highlights downstream challenges in using such descriptions to communicate subjective identity categories in human-AI interaction.

As people increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) for guidance in their own lives, scholars, lawyers, and even judges have begun to consider the role of AI in legal decision-making. As "silicon sampling" -- the use of generative AI models in social science research -- is now impacting academia, "silicon jurors" could make an appearance in courtrooms. This study joins an emerging line of research on generative AI models' ability to simulate human legal judgments. In particular, we study how large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots respond to series of questions about legal reasonableness. When the law needs to judge the appropriateness of a behavior, it most often asks whether the behavior was "reasonable." Yet despite the ubiquity of reasonableness judgments, they are the site of constant vexation for lawyers, judges, and lay people. Reasonableness seems inherently vague and unpredictable, since it relies on variable context and implicit conceptual schemas. Moreover, many scholars caution that reasonableness judgments may vary along demographic lines. We compare the answers of human participants to those of twenty-six LLMs across twenty-five different legally relevant reasonableness judgments. Overall, our findings suggest that chatbot responses generally track those of human participants. Nonetheless, we find some suggestive -- and potentially concerning -- results. Compared to humans, LLMs generate more homogeneous responses and occasionally treat a variable standard as an invariant rule. And, compared to humans, LLMs tend to generate answers that are more favorable to the government and to corporations. Finally, our results indicate that LLMs' responses tend to align more closely with those of respondents who are white, male, older, and more educated. More systematic research is needed to confirm or reject these initial findings.

Post-deployment drift poses a critical risk to algorithmic accountability, particularly when ground truth labels are delayed and performance degradation becomes a "silent failure". While Explainable AI (XAI) is often relied upon to audit these shifts, we demonstrate that popular local attribution methods (e.g., TreeSHAP) can exhibit misleading stability even as model reliability collapses. In this paper, we propose a Framework for Model Monitoring and Observability (FMMO) designed to expose the divergence between local explanation stability and global distribution shifts. Using benchmark, synthetic, and real-world datasets, we show that local XAI methods fail to flag drift-induced disparate impact, specifically where False Positive Rates spike for protected groups while feature attributions remain unchanged. By integrating global surrogate models with model utilization measurements, FMMO mitigates this fairness blind spot, ensuring that stakeholders can detect discriminatory deterioration that standard local XAI tools overlook.

Thesis Proposal: Toward a Human-Centered and Perspective-Aware Framework for Reproducible ML Evaluation and AI Alignment

Deepak Pandita, Christopher M. Homan

Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.

Toxic language in digital workplaces such as pejoratives, sarcasm, condescension, and subtle incivility can erode trust, morale, and collaboration. Existing moderation tools primarily delete or block harmful messages, disrupting communication and offering no constructive resolution. This study adopts a Design Science Research approach to create a responsible AI artifact that detects and detoxifies toxic communication. The artifact integrates fine-tuned transformer-based classifiers (DistilBERT, DistilRoBERTa) with a generative detoxification model (mT0-XL-Detox-ORPO) that rewrites toxic text into semantically equivalent, non-offensive paraphrases. Technical evaluation demonstrates high accuracy in toxicity detection and strong semantic preservation in rewritten messages, supporting conversation continuity while reinforcing respectful discourse. The paper contributes design principles for responsible AI moderation that prioritize meaning preservation and fairness.

Scholarly work which aims to describe potential societal impacts (e.g., risks) of proliferating technology (especially related to artificial intelligence or other algorithmic systems) is likely to have an impact beyond the scientific communities it was written for, given that general society itself is a primary object of study. However, it is an open question whether the current practices of AI evaluation scholarship follow the principles and best practices established by risk science, which aims to systematically generate knowledge related to understanding, assessing, communicating, managing, and governing risk. In this work, we examine this in depth by conducting a literature review of scholarly works purporting to evaluate the bias or fairness of technological systems used for tasks related to hiring and employment. Through analysis of 22 common fairness evaluation metrics and studies using them, we find that most characterize the severity of bias- or fairness-related consequences but do not follow best practices to characterize the uncertainty around either the occurrence of these consequences or severity estimates. Next, we conduct a case study of fairness evaluation for an AI-mediated resume screening task and demonstrate how principles of risk science can be incorporated into such an evaluation. Finally, we propose the AI Risk Report Card, which facilitates the reporting and communication of risk assessment results to stakeholders in positions to act based on the predicted risks. The outcomes of these activities suggest that further research at the convergence of risk science and AI evaluation can lead to advancements in AI assessments of societal impact by enabling shared frameworks to evaluate and discuss AI risks both within and outside of the scientific community.

As generative AI (genAI) systems become embedded in education, employment, healthcare, and creative industries, the impact and engagement among marginalized groups have become both a widespread discourse and a focus in scholarly research. As a starting point, we examine public discourse and empirical research to explore the impact of genAI systems on Black communities. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of 91 empirical papers alongside a media discourse frame analysis of 28 public resources, applying Entman's framing theory to map how each corpus defines problems, attributes causes, and proposes treatments. Our SLR reveals that scholarly research concentrates heavily on technical bias detection, reducing Blackness to measurable variables rather than engaging with cultural practices, structural conditions, or Black knowledge systems. Our frame analysis reveals that public discourse attributes genAI-related harm to historical and systemic forces, while scholarly research stops its causal accounts at the dataset and its treatment recommendations at technical reform. We demonstrate that this misalignment is structurally produced: anti-Blackness operates simultaneously across both registers, generating a shared evacuation of Black epistemic agency. We argue for frame analysis as an AI ethics methodology capable of surfacing what technical evaluation forecloses.