# Context Matters: Auditing Gender Bias in T2I Generation through Risk-Tiered Use-Case Profiles

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13113 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.13113/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 111 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01952/) (2023)
- [Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12966/) (2023)
- [Grounded SAM: Assembling Open-World Models for Diverse Visual Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14159/) (2024)
- [MiniGPT-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.09478/) (2023)
- [TIBET: Identifying and Evaluating Biases in Text-to-Image Generative Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.01261/) (2023)
- [New Job, New Gender? Measuring the Social Bias in Image Generation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00763/) (2024)
- [A Large Scale Analysis of Gender Biases in Text-to-Image Generative Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23398/) (2025)
- [A Sign That Spells: DALL-E 2, Invisual Images and The Racial Politics of Feature Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.06323/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-image (T2I) generative models are increasingly used to produce content for education, media, and public-facing communication, and are starting to be integrated into higher-impact pipelines. Since generated images tend to reinforce stereotypes, producing representational erasure via "default" depictions and shaping perceptions of who belongs in certain roles, a growing body of work has proposed metrics to quantify gender bias in T2I outputs. Yet existing evaluations remain fragmented. Metrics are often reported without a shared view of what they measure, what assumptions they entail, or how their results should be interpreted under different deployment contexts. This limits the usefulness of gender bias measurement for both technical auditing and emerging governance discussions. We propose a risk-aligned auditing framework for gender bias in T2I models composed of three constituents that connects risk categories, evaluation metrics, and harms. First, we identify risk-tiered use-case profiles aligned with the EU AI Act's risk categories to motivate why auditing expectations may vary with deployment contexts and stakeholder exposure. Second, we construct a metric catalog that consolidates gender-bias evaluation methods and organizes them in three measurement categories: gender prediction, embedding similarity, and downstream task. Third, we introduce a harm typology that maps context-dependent harm categories (e.g., representational, quality-of-service) to specific risk-tired scenarios. Finally, we introduce THUMB cards (Text-to-image Harms-informed Use-case-aligned Metrics of gender Bias) that help formulate auditing systematically by the incorporation of context, scenario and bias manifestation, harm hypotheses, and audit strategy.