arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2503.00610

Multimodal Large Language Models Predict Urban Safety Perception but Encode Non-Neutral Demographic Priors

Abstract

Understanding how people perceive urban environments is essential for inclusive planning, yet conventional surveys are costly and difficult to scale. We investigate whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can assess perceived urban safety from street-view imagery while accounting for the observer-dependent nature of perception. Using Place Pulse 2.0, we evaluate four open and proprietary MLLMs across 56 cities under a Neutral prompt and socio-demographic personas defined by gender, age, and race or ethnicity. We also analyse the keywords generated to justify each classification. All four models display comparable zero-shot capability, with city-macro F1 scores of 65--69%, and preserve meaningful cross-city variation. However, they systematically favour the Safe class, underpredict unsafety, and compress differences between cities. Their explanations converge on a shared visual lexicon: maintenance, greenery, order, and residential character support Safe judgements, whereas deterioration, isolation, poor lighting, and limited pedestrian activity support Unsafe judgements. Persona prompting produces substantial and structured shifts while holding the image fixed. Female personas yield more Unsafe classifications than Male personas across all models; age effects are model-dependent, although Middle-aged personas generally remain closest to Neutral. Black/African American and Native American personas frequently show the largest departures, while the closest race or ethnicity match varies by model. These findings show that MLLMs can provide scalable signals of perceived urban safety, but not from a demographically neutral standpoint.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ciro Beneduce, Bruno Lepri, Massimiliano Luca. 2026-08-29. Multimodal Large Language Models Predict Urban Safety Perception but Encode Non-Neutral Demographic Priors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00610

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

BIRDS: Characterizing and Understanding Biodiversity Impact of Large Language Model Serving

Large language model (LLM) serving creates environmental impacts beyond carbon and water, including ecosystem damage through biodiversity-related pathways. We present BIRDS, a framework for Biodiversity Impact of Request-Driven LLM Serving. BIRDS defines request-level functional units, quantifies operational and embodied biodiversity impact, and introduces Quality-Normalized Biodiversity Impact (QNBI) to jointly analyze ecological impact and response quality. Across diverse workloads, models, GPUs, and regions, BIRDS reveals that biodiversity impact accumulates at scale and exposes quality-aware serving tradeoffs. The code is available at https://github.com/TianyaoShi/BIRDS.

q-bio.OT

ParaStudent: Closing the Sim2Real Gap in User Simulators for AI Tutor Evaluation

Evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tutor feedback before deployment requires anticipating student engagement, typically assessed through real interaction data. We introduce ParaStudent, a fine-tuning framework for simulating novice programming revisions to support AI tutor evaluation. Compared with prompted baselines, ParaStudent's revisions more closely match real student code distributions across functional, stylistic, and semantic metrics. Our best variant achieves AUCs of 0.80 for both feedback relevance and successful uptake when distinguishing streams with real engagement above versus at or below the median, while prompted baselines remain near chance on successful uptake. These findings demonstrate the promise of simulated engagement for pre-deployment feedback triage.

cs.CY

Experts Disagree on How to Fight AI Disinformation, but Agree That Health and Politics Need Different Solutions

When 54 international experts assessed AI-generated disinformation threats, they revealed a surprising pattern: while video deepfakes received the highest average threat ratings in the political domain (M = 6.31/7), the pattern differed in the health domain, where AI-generated text received the highest average rating (M = 5.80). Experts also diverge on what to do: government regulation drew both the most "most effective" (30%) and the most "least effective" (15%) votes, though rating distributions were contested rather than polarized, indicating disagreement over priorities rather than over efficacy. These findings offer an initial expert map of an AI-disinformation landscape that is still rapidly forming.

cs.CY