From Charts to Fair Narratives: Uncovering and Mitigating Geo-Economic Biases in Chart-to-Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charts are very common for exploring data and communicating insights, but extracting key takeaways from charts and articulating them in natural language can be challenging. The chart-to-text task aims to automate this process by generating textual summaries of charts. While with the rapid advancement of large Vision-Language Models (VLMs), we have witnessed great progress in this domain, little to no attention has been given to potential biases in their outputs. This paper investigates how VLMs can amplify geo-economic biases when generating chart summaries, potentially causing societal harm. Specifically, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of geo-economic biases in VLM-generated chart summaries across 6,000 chart-country pairs from six widely used proprietary and open-source models to understand how a country’s economic status influences the sentiment of generated summaries. Our analysis reveals that existing VLMs tend to produce more positive descriptions for high-income countries compared to middle- or low-income countries, even when country attribution is the only variable changed. We also find that models such as GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-1.5-Flash, and Phi-3.5 exhibit varying degrees of bias. We further explore inference-time prompt-based debiasing techniques using positive distractors but find them only partially effective, underscoring the complexity of the issue and the need for more robust debiasing strategies. Our code and dataset are available at .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".