Examining the Influence of Political Bias on Large Language Model Performance in Stance Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17688v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:11:38 GMT
• Title: Examining the Influence of Political Bias on Large Language Model Performance in Stance Classification
• Authors: Lynnette Hui Xian Ng, Iain Cruickshank, Roy Ka-Wei Lee,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a tendency to more accurately classify politically-charged stances. Our findings reveal a statistically significant difference in the performance of LLMs across various politically oriented stance classification tasks. LLMs have poorer stance classification accuracy when there is greater ambiguity in the target the statement is directed towards.
• Score: 5.8229466650067065
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in executing tasks based on natural language queries. However, these models, trained on curated datasets, inherently embody biases ranging from racial to national and gender biases. It remains uncertain whether these biases impact the performance of LLMs for certain tasks. In this study, we investigate the political biases of LLMs within the stance classification task, specifically examining whether these models exhibit a tendency to more accurately classify politically-charged stances. Utilizing three datasets, seven LLMs, and four distinct prompting schemes, we analyze the performance of LLMs on politically oriented statements and targets. Our findings reveal a statistically significant difference in the performance of LLMs across various politically oriented stance classification tasks. Furthermore, we observe that this difference primarily manifests at the dataset level, with models and prompting schemes showing statistically similar performances across different stance classification datasets. Lastly, we observe that when there is greater ambiguity in the target the statement is directed towards, LLMs have poorer stance classification accuracy.

Related papers

• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• Unboxing Occupational Bias: Grounded Debiasing of LLMs with U.S. Labor Data [9.90951705988724]
  Large Language Models (LLM) are prone to inheriting and amplifying societal biases. LLM bias can have far-reaching consequences, leading to unfair practices and exacerbating social inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T23:54:26Z)
• LLM-Select: Feature Selection with Large Language Models [64.5099482021597]
  Large language models (LLMs) are capable of selecting the most predictive features, with performance rivaling the standard tools of data science. Our findings suggest that LLMs may be useful not only for selecting the best features for training but also for deciding which features to collect in the first place.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T22:23:40Z)
• CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models [58.57987316300529]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. We propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:31:37Z)
• 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)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• How Robust are LLMs to In-Context Majority Label Bias? [3.3577727874594654]
  We study the robustness of in-context learning in Large Language Models (LLMs) to shifts that occur due to majority label bias. Our findings also highlight the impact of model size and the richness of instructional prompts contributing towards model robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-27T12:20:12Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• Selecting Shots for Demographic Fairness in Few-Shot Learning with Large Language Models [14.772568847965408]
  We explore the effect of shots, which directly affect the performance of models, on the fairness of large language models (LLMs) as NLP classification systems. We consider how different shot selection strategies, both existing and new demographically sensitive methods, affect model fairness across three standard fairness datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T19:02:03Z)
• Confronting LLMs with Traditional ML: Rethinking the Fairness of Large Language Models in Tabular Classifications [23.963586791210414]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) tend to inherit social biases from their training data which significantly impact their fairness in classification tasks. This observation emphasizes that the social biases are inherent within the LLMs themselves and inherited from their pretraining corpus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T06:31:28Z)

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.