Inioluwa Deborah Raji
Photo: Rajiinio · CC BY-SA 4.0

FigureAsia 35 Under 35 · AI

Inioluwa Deborah Raji

Age 29 · Accountability researcher · Nigerian-Canadian researcher working in the United States across technical and civil-rights institutions

Making Algorithmic Accountability Work Beyond the Laboratory

Age at the edition eligibility date
29
Field
Algorithmic auditing, accountability and multilingual evaluation
Country or region
Nigerian-Canadian researcher working in the United States across technical and civil-rights institutions
FigureAsia U35 Assessment
89.0 / 100

Career and documented record

Inioluwa Deborah Raji studies the distance between a model’s measured performance and its consequences in use. Across auditing, multilingual testing and public policy, she has pressed for evaluation systems that examine institutions, deployment conditions and the people affected—not scores in isolation.

Inioluwa Deborah Raji has spent much of her career asking what an AI evaluation is actually for. A benchmark may describe performance under controlled conditions; an audit must connect evidence to responsibility, remedy and real-world decisions. As a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley and an Academic Fellow at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Raji works across computer science, institutional design and public accountability. In 2025, she contributed to the writing group behind the first International AI Safety Report and to California’s expert report on frontier-model policy. Her peer-reviewed work that year examined how predictive systems interact with human decision-makers and proposed ways to aggregate individual reports into evidence of systemic harm. In 2026, multilingual functional evaluation co-authored with Victor Ojewale and Suresh Venkatasubramanian showed that model performance could fall unevenly when static tests were converted into more demanding functional tasks across six languages. The result reinforces a principle running through Raji’s work: an evaluation is credible only when its construct, context and consequences are clear. Her influence lies in moving accountability from ethical aspiration toward inspectable practice.

Why Inioluwa Deborah Raji is on the list

FigureAsia selected Raji for joining technical evaluation to institutional accountability. Her work makes clear that an accurate prediction can still fail inside a flawed workflow, and that a strong benchmark score can conceal weaknesses across languages or deployment conditions. She moves between research and policy without treating either as a substitute for the other. The distinction matters: her public-report contributions were collective, and her academic findings do not establish that every proposed audit will work in practice. They establish a disciplined basis for asking better questions.

The 2025–26 record

Verified contribution 01

Served on the writing group of the 2025 International AI Safety Report, a collective assessment produced by 100 experts and informed by nominees from more than 30 countries and intergovernmental bodies.

Verified contribution 02

Co-authored California’s June 2025 expert report on frontier AI policy; the report informed debate but did not endorse or oppose a particular bill.

Verified contribution 03

Co-authored 2025 peer-reviewed work on prediction-based interventions and a reporting framework for identifying systemic harms from individual experiences.

Verified contribution 04

Co-authored a 2026 multilingual functional-evaluation study spanning English, French, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic and Yoruba, documenting uneven gaps between static and functional benchmark performance.

The work in its field

Raji’s recent work spans an international scientific assessment, a major subnational policy process and multilingual model evaluation across six languages. Earlier audit research has also become a widely used reference for practitioners examining commercial facial-analysis systems and internal accountability processes.

Her functional-evaluation work includes Hindi and Arabic, while her audit framework is directly relevant to Asian public agencies and companies deploying imported models in local institutions.

Assessment breakdown

89.0out of 100

01

Defining contribution

22.5 / 25

A completed piece of work, institution or system that materially changes what the field can do.

02

Demonstrated impact and reach

17 / 20

Observable adoption, scientific use, policy consequence or operational reach, with self-reported metrics labelled as such.

03

Personal agency and attribution

13.5 / 15

Evidence that the individual shaped the result, separated from team, employer and investor halo.

04

Technical or institutional originality

13.5 / 15

A new method, product form, research direction, governance mechanism or deployment model.

05

Durability and field-shaping influence

8.8 / 10

The likelihood that the contribution will remain useful beyond a single news cycle or model release.

06

Evidence integrity and responsible practice

9.3 / 10

The quality of the record, the precision of claims and the seriousness with which limitations and harms are addressed.

07

Asia–world relevance

4.4 / 5

A documented connection to Asia, impact on Asian systems, or clear importance to the region’s place in the international field.

Evidence and attribution

Material claims on this page are supported by the edition’s evidence record. FigureAsia tests age, identity, role, result and individual attribution before publication. Public profiles present the reported record; supporting documentation is retained for accuracy review and corrections.

Achievement records
5
Assessment window
2025–26
Editorial status
Included in the 2026 FigureAsia 35 Under 35 edition

Rights and credit

The portrait is published under the rights basis recorded for this edition. Third-party ownership and reuse restrictions remain in force.

Publication status
Published under a documented rights basis
Credit
Rajiinio
Licence
CC BY-SA 4.0
Portrait source and credit