Papers › Native Design Bias: Studying the Impact of English Nativeness on Language Model Performance

Native Design Bias: Studying the Impact of English Nativeness on Language Model Performance

25 Jun 2024arXiv:2406.17385archive 2025-07-28

Manon Reusens, Philipp Borchert, Jochen De Weerdt, Bart Baesens

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at providing information acquired during pretraining on large-scale corpora and following instructions through user prompts. This study investigates whether the quality of LLM responses varies depending on the demographic profile of users. Considering English as the global lingua franca, along with the diversity of its dialects among speakers of different native languages, we explore whether non-native English speakers receive lower-quality or even factually incorrect responses from LLMs more frequently. Our results show that performance discrepancies occur when LLMs are prompted by native versus non-native English speakers and persist when comparing native speakers from Western countries with others. Additionally, we find a strong anchoring effect when the model recognizes or is made aware of the user's nativeness, which further degrades the response quality when interacting with non-native speakers. Our analysis is based on a newly collected dataset with over 12,000 unique annotations from 124 annotators, including information on their native language and English proficiency.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

11 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 11 of the 11 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from manon-reusens/native_en_bias. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections