Investigating LLMs as Voting Assistants via Contextual Augmentation: A Case Study on the European Parliament Elections 2024

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08495v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:29:28 GMT
• Title: Investigating LLMs as Voting Assistants via Contextual Augmentation: A Case Study on the European Parliament Elections 2024
• Authors: Ilias Chalkidis,
• Abstract summary: Recent work has been exploring political biases and political reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models. In light of the recent 2024 European Parliament elections, we are investigating if LLMs can be used as Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) We evaluate MISTRAL and MIXTRAL models and evaluate their accuracy in predicting the stance of political parties based on the latest "EU and I" voting assistance questionnaire.
• Score: 22.471701390730185
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Instruction-finetuned Large Language Models exhibit unprecedented Natural Language Understanding capabilities. Recent work has been exploring political biases and political reasoning capabilities in LLMs, mainly scoped in the US context. In light of the recent 2024 European Parliament elections, we are investigating if LLMs can be used as Voting Advice Applications (VAAs). We audit MISTRAL and MIXTRAL models and evaluate their accuracy in predicting the stance of political parties based on the latest "EU and I" voting assistance questionnaire. Furthermore, we explore alternatives to improve models' performance by augmenting the input context via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) relying on web search, and Self-Reflection using staged conversations that aim to re-collect relevant content from the model's internal memory. We find that MIXTRAL is highly accurate with an 82% accuracy on average. Augmenting the input context with expert-curated information can lead to a significant boost of approx. 9%, which remains an open challenge for automated approaches.

Related papers

• GermanPartiesQA: Benchmarking Commercial Large Language Models for Political Bias and Sycophancy [20.06753067241866]
  We evaluate and compare the alignment of six LLMs by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere with German party positions. We conduct our prompt experiment for which we use the benchmark and sociodemographic data of leading German parliamentarians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T13:04:25Z)
• Assessing Political Bias in Large Language Models [0.624709220163167]
  We evaluate the political bias of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) concerning political issues within the European Union (EU) from a German voter's perspective. We show that larger models, such as Llama3-70B, tend to align more closely with left-leaning political parties, while smaller models often remain neutral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T15:30:18Z)
• Can LLMs Help Predict Elections? (Counter)Evidence from the World's Largest Democracy [3.0915192911449796]
  The study of how social media affects the formation of public opinion and its influence on political results has been a popular field of inquiry. We introduce a new method: harnessing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to examine social media data and forecast election outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T15:13:23Z)
• Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy [6.491009626125319]
  We explore the capabilities of an augmented democracy system built on off-the-shelf LLMs fine-tuned on data summarizing individual preferences. We use a train-test cross-validation setup to estimate the accuracy with which the LLMs predict both: a subject's individual political choices and the aggregate preferences of the full sample of participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T13:23:57Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Fine-Grained Self-Endorsement Improves Factuality and Reasoning [72.83651220132495]
  This work studies improving large language model (LLM) generations at inference time by mitigating fact-conflicting hallucinations. We propose a self-endorsement framework that leverages the fine-grained fact-level comparisons across multiple sampled responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T22:24:40Z)
• Large Language Models: A Survey [69.72787936480394]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks. LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z)
• Factuality of Large Language Models in the Year 2024 [31.039783688574897]
  We critically analyze existing work with the aim to identify the major challenges and their associated causes. We analyze the obstacles to automated factuality evaluation for open-ended text generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-04T09:36:31Z)
• NoMIRACL: Knowing When You Don't Know for Robust Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation [92.5132418788568]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations. NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages. We measure robustness using two metrics: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate an answer, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z)
• Adaptation with Self-Evaluation to Improve Selective Prediction in LLMs [56.526095828316386]
  We propose a novel framework for adaptation with self-evaluation to improve the selective prediction performance of large language models (LLMs) We evaluate our method on a variety of question-answering (QA) datasets and show that it outperforms state-of-the-art selective prediction methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T03:34:59Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [53.504471079548]
  We systematically investigate the impact of Retrieval-Augmented Generation on large language models. We analyze the performance of different large language models in 4 fundamental abilities required for RAG. We establish Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (RGB), a new corpus for RAG evaluation in both English and Chinese.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T08:28:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.