GeoBS: Information-Theoretic Quantification of Geographic Bias in AI Models

The widespread adoption of AI models, especially foundation models (FMs), has made a profound impact on numerous domains. However, it also raises significant ethical concerns, including bias issues. Although numerous efforts have been made to quantify and mitigate social bias in AI models, geographic bias (in short, geo-bias) receives much less attention, which presents unique challenges. While previous work has explored ways to quantify geo-bias, these measures are model-specific (e.g., mean absolute deviation of LLM ratings) or spatially implicit (e.g., average fairness scores of all spatial partitions). We lack a model-agnostic, universally applicable, and spatially explicit geo-bias evaluation framework that allows researchers to fairly compare the geo-bias of different AI models and to understand what spatial factors contribute to the geo-bias. In this paper, we establish an information-theoretic framework for geo-bias evaluation, called GeoBS (Geo-Bias Scores). We demonstrate the generalizability of the proposed framework by showing how to interpret and analyze existing geo-bias measures under this framework. Then, we propose three novel geo-bias scores that explicitly take intricate spatial factors (multi-scalability, distance decay, and anisotropy) into consideration. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments on 3 tasks, 8 datasets, and 8 models to demonstrate that both task-specific GeoAI models and general-purpose foundation models may suffer from various types of geo-bias. This framework will not only advance the technical understanding of geographic bias but will also establish a foundation for integrating spatial fairness into the design, deployment, and evaluation of AI systems.

Publication Details

Journal
ArXiv.org
Published
2025-09-27
Primary Topic
Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

GeoBS: Information-Theoretic Quantification of Geographic Bias in AI Models

ArXiv.org
Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
article

GeoBS: Information-Theoretic Quantification of Geographic Bias in AI Models

article en

Abstract

The widespread adoption of AI models, especially foundation models (FMs), has made a profound impact on numerous domains. However, it also raises significant ethical concerns, including bias issues. Although numerous efforts have been made to quantify and mitigate social bias in AI models, geographic bias (in short, geo-bias) receives much less attention, which presents unique challenges. While previous work has explored ways to quantify geo-bias, these measures are model-specific (e.g., mean absolute deviation of LLM ratings) or spatially implicit (e.g., average fairness scores of all spatial partitions). We lack a model-agnostic, universally applicable, and spatially explicit geo-bias evaluation framework that allows researchers to fairly compare the geo-bias of different AI models and to understand what spatial factors contribute to the geo-bias. In this paper, we establish an information-theoretic framework for geo-bias evaluation, called GeoBS (Geo-Bias Scores). We demonstrate the generalizability of the proposed framework by showing how to interpret and analyze existing geo-bias measures under this framework. Then, we propose three novel geo-bias scores that explicitly take intricate spatial factors (multi-scalability, distance decay, and anisotropy) into consideration. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments on 3 tasks, 8 datasets, and 8 models to demonstrate that both task-specific GeoAI models and general-purpose foundation models may suffer from various types of geo-bias. This framework will not only advance the technical understanding of geographic bias but will also establish a foundation for integrating spatial fairness into the design, deployment, and evaluation of AI systems.

ArXiv.org
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.