Evaluation of Geographical Distortions in Language Models: A Crucial Step Towards Equitable Representations
2404.17401
0
0
💬
Abstract
Language models now constitute essential tools for improving efficiency for many professional tasks such as writing, coding, or learning. For this reason, it is imperative to identify inherent biases. In the field of Natural Language Processing, five sources of bias are well-identified: data, annotation, representation, models, and research design. This study focuses on biases related to geographical knowledge. We explore the connection between geography and language models by highlighting their tendency to misrepresent spatial information, thus leading to distortions in the representation of geographical distances. This study introduces four indicators to assess these distortions, by comparing geographical and semantic distances. Experiments are conducted from these four indicators with ten widely used language models. Results underscore the critical necessity of inspecting and rectifying spatial biases in language models to ensure accurate and equitable representations.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Language models have become essential tools for improving efficiency in many professional tasks like writing, coding, and learning.
- It is crucial to identify and address inherent biases in these language models.
- Five main sources of bias in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have been identified: data, annotation, representation, models, and research design.
- This study focuses on biases related to geographical knowledge in language models.
Plain English Explanation
Language models are a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that can understand and generate human-like text. These models are now widely used to help people be more efficient at various tasks, like writing, coding, and learning. However, these language models can also have built-in biases that can lead to inaccurate or unfair outcomes.
The researchers in this study looked at one specific type of bias in language models: biases related to geographic knowledge. They found that language models tend to misrepresent spatial information, such as the distances between different places. This can lead to distorted views of the world and inaccurate representations of geography.
To measure these geographic biases, the researchers developed four different indicators that compare the distances between places as understood by the language models to the actual geographic distances. They then tested these indicators on ten widely used language models.
The results showed that geographic biases are a significant issue in current language models. This means that these models may not be accurately representing the world and could lead to unfair or inaccurate outcomes when used for tasks related to geography, such as summarizing research on evaluating geographic diversity in foundation models or building geography-agnostic models for fairer classification.
Technical Explanation
This study focused on biases related to geographic knowledge in language models, a crucial area of investigation given the widespread use of these models in various professional tasks. The researchers developed four indicators to assess the distortions in the representation of geographical distances within language models. These indicators compare the semantic distances (as determined by the language models) to the actual geographic distances between locations.
The researchers applied these four indicators to ten widely used language models, including BERT, GPT-2, and RoBERTa. The results revealed significant geographic biases across the tested models, highlighting their tendency to misrepresent spatial information and leading to distorted views of the world. This finding is particularly relevant for applications that rely on accurate geographic knowledge, such as evaluating the geographic diversity of foundation models or building geography-agnostic models for fairer classification.
Critical Analysis
The study provides a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of geographic biases in language models, but it also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research. For example, the researchers note that the four indicators they developed may not capture all aspects of geographic biases, and there could be other approaches to evaluating these biases.
Additionally, the study focuses on a relatively small set of language models, and it would be valuable to expand the analysis to a broader range of models, including those developed in different languages and cultural contexts. This could help identify more nuanced patterns of geographic biases and explore the trade-offs between fair representations and model performance.
Furthermore, while the study highlights the critical necessity of inspecting and rectifying spatial biases in language models, it does not provide specific solutions or recommendations for addressing these biases. Future research could explore techniques for mitigating gender biases in Turkish language models or other approaches to creating more accurate and equitable representations of geographic knowledge in language models.
Conclusion
This study underscores the important issue of geographic biases in language models, which can lead to distorted and inaccurate representations of the world. By developing four indicators to assess these biases and applying them to a range of widely used language models, the researchers have provided a valuable contribution to the field of NLP.
The findings highlight the critical need to inspect and address spatial biases in language models to ensure they are accurately and equitably representing geographic knowledge. As these models become increasingly prevalent in various professional domains, it is crucial that researchers and practitioners work to mitigate these biases and develop more inclusive and representative language models.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
💬
Distortions in Judged Spatial Relations in Large Language Models
Nir Fulman, Abdulkadir Memduhou{g}lu, Alexander Zipf
0
0
We present a benchmark for assessing the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to discern intercardinal directions between geographic locations and apply it to three prominent LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Llama-2. This benchmark specifically evaluates whether LLMs exhibit a hierarchical spatial bias similar to humans, where judgments about individual locations' spatial relationships are influenced by the perceived relationships of the larger groups that contain them. To investigate this, we formulated 14 questions focusing on well-known American cities. Seven questions were designed to challenge the LLMs with scenarios potentially influenced by the orientation of larger geographical units, such as states or countries, while the remaining seven targeted locations were less susceptible to such hierarchical categorization. Among the tested models, GPT-4 exhibited superior performance with 55 percent accuracy, followed by GPT-3.5 at 47 percent, and Llama-2 at 45 percent. The models showed significantly reduced accuracy on tasks with suspected hierarchical bias. For example, GPT-4's accuracy dropped to 33 percent on these tasks, compared to 86 percent on others. However, the models identified the nearest cardinal direction in most cases, reflecting their associative learning mechanism, thereby embodying human-like misconceptions. We discuss avenues for improving the spatial reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
6/5/2024
Measuring Geographic Diversity of Foundation Models with a Natural Language--based Geo-guessing Experiment on GPT-4
Zilong Liu, Krzysztof Janowicz, Kitty Currier, Meilin Shi
0
0
Generative AI based on foundation models provides a first glimpse into the world represented by machines trained on vast amounts of multimodal data ingested by these models during training. If we consider the resulting models as knowledge bases in their own right, this may open up new avenues for understanding places through the lens of machines. In this work, we adopt this thinking and select GPT-4, a state-of-the-art representative in the family of multimodal large language models, to study its geographic diversity regarding how well geographic features are represented. Using DBpedia abstracts as a ground-truth corpus for probing, our natural language--based geo-guessing experiment shows that GPT-4 may currently encode insufficient knowledge about several geographic feature types on a global level. On a local level, we observe not only this insufficiency but also inter-regional disparities in GPT-4's geo-guessing performance on UNESCO World Heritage Sites that carry significance to both local and global populations, and the inter-regional disparities may become smaller as the geographic scale increases. Morever, whether assessing the geo-guessing performance on a global or local level, we find inter-model disparities in GPT-4's geo-guessing performance when comparing its unimodal and multimodal variants. We hope this work can initiate a discussion on geographic diversity as an ethical principle within the GIScience community in the face of global socio-technical challenges.
4/12/2024
💬
This Land is {Your, My} Land: Evaluating Geopolitical Biases in Language Models
Bryan Li, Samar Haider, Chris Callison-Burch
0
0
Do the Spratly Islands belong to China, the Philippines, or Vietnam? A pretrained large language model (LLM) may answer differently if asked in the languages of each claimant country: Chinese, Tagalog, or Vietnamese. This contrasts with a multilingual human, who would likely answer consistently. In this paper, we show that LLMs recall certain geographical knowledge inconsistently when queried in different languages -- a phenomenon we term geopolitical bias. As a targeted case study, we consider territorial disputes, an inherently controversial and multilingual task. We introduce BorderLines, a dataset of territorial disputes which covers 251 territories, each associated with a set of multiple-choice questions in the languages of each claimant country (49 languages in total). We also propose a suite of evaluation metrics to precisely quantify bias and consistency in responses across different languages. We then evaluate various multilingual LLMs on our dataset and metrics to probe their internal knowledge and use the proposed metrics to discover numerous inconsistencies in how these models respond in different languages. Finally, we explore several prompt modification strategies, aiming to either amplify or mitigate geopolitical bias, which highlights how brittle LLMs are and how they tailor their responses depending on cues from the interaction context. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/manestay/borderlines
4/3/2024
Classification for everyone : Building geography agnostic models for fairer recognition
Akshat Jindal, Shreya Singh, Soham Gadgil
0
0
In this paper, we analyze different methods to mitigate inherent geographical biases present in state of the art image classification models. We first quantitatively present this bias in two datasets - The Dollar Street Dataset and ImageNet, using images with location information. We then present different methods which can be employed to reduce this bias. Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of the different techniques on making these models more robust to geographical locations of the images.
4/3/2024