The complete list may be seen in Table 8. Here are a few general notes about these strings: 1. Based on their recommendations, we did the following: 1. zh, zh_Latn: This resulted in the special filters described below. URLs) the corpora were in languages different from the LangID predictions. This is mainly mis-rendered PDFs and may have practical applications for denoising, or for decoding such garbled PDFs.

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.

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.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are used to improve clinical and service outcomes, yet evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is dispersed. This protocol outlines methods to quantify the impact of CDSS on patient and healthcare delivery outcomes in LMICs. We will include comparative quantitative designs (randomized trials, controlled before-after, interrupted time series, comparative cohorts) evaluating CDSS in World Bank-defined LMICs. Standalone qualitative studies are excluded; mixed-methods studies are eligible only if they report comparative quantitative outcomes, for which we will extract the quantitative component. Searches (from inception to 30 September 2024) will cover MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Global Health, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, LILACS, African Index Medicus, and IndMED, plus grey sources. Screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate. Risk of bias will be assessed with RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (non-randomized). Random-effects meta-analysis will be performed where outcomes are conceptually or statistically comparable; otherwise, a structured narrative synthesis will be presented. Heterogeneity will be explored using relative and absolute metrics and a priori subgroups or meta-regression (condition area, care level, CDSS type, readiness proxies, study design).

Recent advancements in language agents have led to significant improvements in multi-hop reasoning tasks. However, existing approaches often struggle with handling open-domain problems, which require massive information retrieval due to their reliance on a fixed sequence of actions. To address this, we propose Feedback-Guided Dynamic Interactive Planning (FGDIP), a novel framework tailored to enhance reasoning in LLMs by utilizing dynamic and adaptive strategies for information exploration in open-domain multi-hop reasoning tasks. Our approach begins by identifying key entities relevant to the problem, which serve as the initial nodes in the reasoning process. From these initial nodes, we then generate reasoning child nodes with the process being refined through a combination of historical error analysis and real-time feedback, which allows the framework to dynamically adjust and optimize its reasoning strategies. By integrating depth-first search with an innovative node generation technique, our framework adapts based on both prior error paths and concurrently generated nodes at the same hierarchical level. This dynamic strategy effectively expands the search space while ensuring the reasoning process systematically converges toward accurate solutions. Experimental results show that FGDIP achieved up to 54.47% F1 score on the HotpotQA dataset and 70.05% on the StrategyQA dataset, surpassing the best baseline by 5.03% and 7.25% respectively, highlighting its versatility and potential to enhance language agents in multi-hop reasoning tasks.

The complete list may be seen in Table 8. Here are a few general notes about these strings: 1. Based on their recommendations, we did the following: 1. zh, zh_Latn: This resulted in the special filters described below. URLs) the corpora were in languages different from the LangID predictions. This is mainly mis-rendered PDFs and may have practical applications for denoising, or for decoding such garbled PDFs.

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.

Despite growing research on bias in large language models (LLMs), most work has focused on gender and race, with little attention to religious identity. This paper explores how religion is internally represented in LLMs and how it intersects with concepts of violence and geography. Using mechanistic interpretability and Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) via the Neuronpedia API, we analyze latent feature activations across five models. We measure overlap between religion- and violence-related prompts and probe semantic patterns in activation contexts. While all five religions show comparable internal cohesion, Islam is more frequently linked to features associated with violent language. In contrast, geographic associations largely reflect real-world religious demographics, revealing how models embed both factual distributions and cultural stereotypes. These findings highlight the value of structural analysis in auditing not just outputs but also internal representations that shape model behavior.

This paper evaluates the performance of six open-weight LLMs (llama3-8b, llama3.1-8b, gemma2-9b, mixtral-8x7b, llama3-70b, llama3.1-70b) in recommending experts in physics across five tasks: top-k experts by field, influential scientists by discipline, epoch, seniority, and scholar counterparts. The evaluation examines consistency, factuality, and biases related to gender, ethnicity, academic popularity, and scholar similarity. Using ground-truth data from the American Physical Society and OpenAlex, we establish scholarly benchmarks by comparing model outputs to real-world academic records. Our analysis reveals inconsistencies and biases across all models. mixtral-8x7b produces the most stable outputs, while llama3.1-70b shows the highest variability. Many models exhibit duplication, and some, particularly gemma2-9b and llama3.1-8b, struggle with formatting errors. LLMs generally recommend real scientists, but accuracy drops in field-, epoch-, and seniority-specific queries, consistently favoring senior scholars. Representation biases persist, replicating gender imbalances (reflecting male predominance), under-representing Asian scientists, and over-representing White scholars. Despite some diversity in institutional and collaboration networks, models favor highly cited and productive scholars, reinforcing the rich-getricher effect while offering limited geographical representation. These findings highlight the need to improve LLMs for more reliable and equitable scholarly recommendations.