As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into everyday life and information ecosystems, concerns about their implicit biases continue to persist. While prior work has primarily examined socio-demographic and left--right political dimensions, little attention has been paid to how LLMs align with broader geopolitical value systems, particularly the democracy--authoritarianism spectrum. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to assess such alignment, combining (1) the F-scale, a psychometric tool for measuring authoritarian tendencies, (2) FavScore, a newly introduced metric for evaluating model favorability toward world leaders, and (3) role-model probing to assess which figures are cited as general role-models by LLMs. We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increased favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin. Further, models are found to often cite authoritarian figures as role models, even outside explicit political contexts. These results shed light on ways LLMs may reflect and potentially reinforce global political ideologies, highlighting the importance of evaluating bias beyond conventional socio-political axes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/irenestrauss/Democratic-Authoritarian-Bias-LLMs.

Often, multilingual language models are trained with the objective to map semantically similar content (in different languages) in the same latent space. In this paper, we show a nuance in this training objective, and find that by changing the language of the input query, we can improve the question answering ability of language models. Our contributions are two-fold. First, we introduce the term Language Specific Knowledge (LSK) to denote queries that are best answered in an "expert language" for a given LLM, thereby enhancing its question-answering ability. We introduce the problem of language selection -- for some queries, language models can perform better when queried in languages other than English, sometimes even better in low-resource languages -- and the goal is to select the optimal language for the query. Second, we introduce simple to strong baselines to test this problem. Additionally, as a first-pass solution to this novel problem, we design LSKExtractor to benchmark the language-specific knowledge present in a language model and then exploit it during inference. To test our framework, we employ three datasets that contain knowledge about both cultural and social behavioral norms. Overall, LSKExtractor achieves up to 10% relative improvement across datasets, and is competitive against strong baselines, while being feasible in real-world settings. Broadly, our research contributes to the open-source development (https://github.com/agarwalishika/LSKExtractor/tree/main) of language models that are inclusive and more aligned with the cultural and linguistic contexts in which they are deployed.

Emotions are a fundamental facet of human experience, varying across individuals, cultural contexts, and nationalities. Given the recent success of Large Language Models (LLMs) as role-playing agents, we examine whether LLMs exhibit emotional stereotypes when assigned nationality-specific personas. Specifically, we investigate how different countries are represented in pre-trained LLMs through emotion attributions and whether these attributions align with cultural norms. To provide a deeper interpretive lens, we incorporate four key cultural dimensions, namely Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term Orientation, and Individualism, derived from Hofstedes cross-cultural framework. Our analysis reveals significant nationality-based differences, with emotions such as shame, fear, and joy being disproportionately assigned across regions. Furthermore, we observe notable misalignment between LLM-generated and human emotional responses, particularly for negative emotions, highlighting the presence of reductive and potentially biased stereotypes in LLM outputs.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is diffusing globally at unprecedented speed, but adoption remains uneven. Frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to perform poorly on low-resource languages due to data scarcity. We hypothesize that this performance deficit reduces the utility of AI, thereby slowing adoption in Low-Resource Language Countries (LRLCs). To test this, we use a weighted regression model to isolate the language effect from socioeconomic and demographic factors, finding that LRLCs have a share of AI users that is approximately 20% lower relative to their baseline. These results indicate that linguistic accessibility is a significant, independent barrier to equitable AI diffusion.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted in conservation to address the biodiversity crisis, yet their reliability for species evaluation is uncertain. This study systematically validates five leading models on 21,955 species across four core IUCN Red List assessment components: taxonomy, conservation status, distribution, and threats. A critical paradox was revealed: models excelled at taxonomic classification (94.9%) but consistently failed at conservation reasoning (27.2% for status assessment). This knowledge-reasoning gap, evident across all models, suggests inherent architectural constraints, not just data limitations. Furthermore, models exhibited systematic biases favoring charismatic vertebrates, potentially amplifying existing conservation inequities. These findings delineate clear boundaries for responsible LLM deployment: they are powerful tools for information retrieval but require human oversight for judgment-based decisions. A hybrid approach is recommended, where LLMs augment expert capacity while human experts retain sole authority over risk assessment and policy.

This study examines the role of human judges in legal decision-making by using machine learning to predict child physical custody outcomes in French appellate courts. Building on the legal realism-formalism debate, we test whether individual judges' decision-making patterns significantly influence case outcomes, challenging the assumption that judges are neutral variables that apply the law uniformly. To ensure compliance with French privacy laws, we implement a strict pseudonymization process. Our analysis uses 18,937 living arrangements rulings extracted from 10,306 cases. We compare models trained on individual judges' past rulings (specialist models) with a judge-agnostic model trained on aggregated data (generalist models). The prediction pipeline is a hybrid approach combining large language models (LLMs) for structured feature extraction and ML models for outcome prediction (RF, XGB and SVC). Our results show that specialist models consistently achieve higher predictive accuracy than the general model, with top-performing models reaching F1 scores as high as 92.85%, compared to the generalist model's 82.63% trained on 20x to 100x more samples. Specialist models capture stable individual patterns that are not transferable to other judges. In-Domain and Cross-Domain validity tests provide empirical support for legal realism, demonstrating that judicial identity plays a measurable role in legal outcomes. All data and code used will be made available.

Composite indicators are widely used to score or classify units evaluated on multiple criteria. Their construction involves aggregating criteria evaluations, a common practice in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA). In MCDA, various methods have been proposed to address key aspects of multiple criteria evaluations, such as the measurement scales of the criteria, the degree of acceptable compensation between them, and their potential interactions. However, beyond producing a final score or classification, it is essential to ensure the explainability and interpretability of results as well as the procedure's transparency. This paper proposes a method for constructing explainable and interpretable composite indicators using " if..., then... " decision rules. We consider the explainability and interpretability of composite indicators in four scenarios: (i) decision rules explain numerical scores obtained from an aggregation of numerical codes corresponding to ordinal qualifiers; (ii) an obscure numerical composite indicator classifies units into quantiles; (iii) given preference information provided by a Decision Maker in the form of classifications of some reference units, a composite indicator is constructed using decision rules; (iv) the classification of a set of units results from the application of an MCDA method and is explained by decision rules. To induce the rules from scored or classified units, we apply the Dominance-based Rough Set Approach. The resulting decision rules relate the class assignment or unit's score to threshold conditions on values of selected indicators in an intelligible way, clarifying the underlying rationale. Moreover, they serve to recommend composite indicator assessment for new units of interest.

Temporal tabular question answering presents a significant challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs), requiring robust reasoning over structured data, which is a task where traditional prompting methods often fall short. These methods face challenges such as memorization, sensitivity to table size, and reduced performance on complex queries. To overcome these limitations, we introduce TempTabQA-C, a synthetic dataset designed for systematic and controlled evaluations, alongside a symbolic intermediate representation that transforms tables into database schemas. This structured approach allows LLMs to generate and execute SQL queries, enhancing generalization and mitigating biases. By incorporating adaptive few-shot prompting with contextually tailored examples, our method achieves superior robustness, scalability, and performance. Experimental results consistently highlight improvements across key challenges, setting a new benchmark for robust temporal reasoning with LLMs.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have recently gained attention due to their distinctive performance and broad applicability. While it has been previously shown that their efficacy in usage scenarios involving non-Western contexts falls short, existing studies are limited in scope, covering just a narrow range of cultures, focusing exclusively on a small number of cultural aspects, or evaluating a limited selection of models on a single task only. Towards globally inclusive LVLM research, we introduce GIMMICK, an extensive multimodal benchmark designed to assess a broad spectrum of cultural knowledge across 144 countries representing six global macro-regions. GIMMICK comprises six tasks built upon three new datasets that span 728 unique cultural events or facets on which we evaluated 20 LVLMs and 11 LLMs, including five proprietary and 26 open-weight models of all sizes. We systematically examine (1) regional cultural biases, (2) the influence of model size, (3) input modalities, and (4) external cues. Our analyses reveal strong biases toward Western cultures across models and tasks and highlight strong correlations between model size and performance, as well as the effectiveness of multimodal input and external geographic cues. We further find that models have more knowledge of tangible than intangible aspects (e.g., food vs. rituals) and that they excel in recognizing broad cultural origins but struggle with a more nuanced understanding.

Text-embedding models often exhibit biases arising from the data on which they are trained. In this paper, we examine a hitherto unexplored bias in text-embeddings: bias arising from the presence of $\textit{names}$ such as persons, locations, organizations etc. in the text. Our study shows how the presence of $\textit{name-bias}$ in text-embedding models can potentially lead to erroneous conclusions in assessment of thematic similarity.Text-embeddings can mistakenly indicate similarity between texts based on names in the text, even when their actual semantic content has no similarity or indicate dissimilarity simply because of the names in the text even when the texts match semantically. We first demonstrate the presence of name bias in different text-embedding models and then propose $\textit{text-anonymization}$ during inference which involves removing references to names, while preserving the core theme of the text. The efficacy of the anonymization approach is demonstrated on two downstream NLP tasks, achieving significant performance gains. Our simple and training-optimization-free approach offers a practical and easily implementable solution to mitigate name bias.