REVIEW 1 cited by
Geographic and Geopolitical Biases of Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Pretrained language models (PLMs) often fail to fairly represent target users from certain world regions because of the under-representation of those regions in training datasets. With recent PLMs trained on enormous data sources, quantifying their potential biases is difficult, due to their black-box nature and the sheer scale of the data sources. In this work, we devise an approach to study the geographic bias (and knowledge) present in PLMs, proposing a Geographic-Representation Probing Framework adopting a self-conditioning method coupled with entity-country mappings. Our findings suggest PLMs' representations map surprisingly well to the physical world in terms of country-to-country associations, but this knowledge is unequally shared across languages. Last, we explain how large PLMs despite exhibiting notions of geographical proximity, over-amplify geopolitical favouritism at inference time.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Estimating the Geopolitical Preferences of Large Language Models from United Nations Voting Data
On a UN-vote ideal-point scale, GPT-5, Claude Sonnet, and Gemini are closer to Russia than to the US among P5 states, DeepSeek is closest to France, and all four are farthest from the US.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.