United in Diversity? Contextual Biases in LLM-Based Predictions of the 2024 European Parliament Elections

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09045v1
• Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:01:06 GMT
• Title: United in Diversity? Contextual Biases in LLM-Based Predictions of the 2024 European Parliament Elections
• Authors: Leah von der Heyde, Anna-Carolina Haensch, Alexander Wenz,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are perceived by some as having the potential to revolutionize social science research. In this study, we examine to what extent LLM-based predictions of public opinion exhibit context-dependent biases. We predict voting behavior in the 2024 European Parliament elections using a state-of-the-art LLM.
• Score: 45.84205238554709
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are perceived by some as having the potential to revolutionize social science research, considering their training data includes information on human attitudes and behavior. If these attitudes are reflected in LLM output, LLM-generated "synthetic samples" could be used as a viable and efficient alternative to surveys of real humans. However, LLM-synthetic samples might exhibit coverage bias due to training data and fine-tuning processes being unrepresentative of diverse linguistic, social, political, and digital contexts. In this study, we examine to what extent LLM-based predictions of public opinion exhibit context-dependent biases by predicting voting behavior in the 2024 European Parliament elections using a state-of-the-art LLM. We prompt GPT-4-Turbo with anonymized individual-level background information, varying prompt content and language, ask the LLM to predict each person's voting behavior, and compare the weighted aggregates to the real election results. Our findings emphasize the limited applicability of LLM-synthetic samples to public opinion prediction. We show that (1) the LLM-based prediction of future voting behavior largely fails, (2) prediction accuracy is unequally distributed across national and linguistic contexts, and (3) improving LLM predictions requires detailed attitudinal information about individuals for prompting. In investigating the contextual differences of LLM-based predictions of public opinion, our research contributes to the understanding and mitigation of biases and inequalities in the development of LLMs and their applications in computational social science.

Related papers

• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [73.25935570218375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. We uncover notable diversity in the ideological stance exhibited across different LLMs and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey of Bias in LLMs: Current Landscape and Future Directions [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized various applications in natural language processing (NLP) by providing unprecedented text generation, translation, and comprehension capabilities. Their widespread deployment has brought to light significant concerns regarding biases embedded within these models. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of biases in LLMs, aiming to provide an extensive review of the types, sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies related to these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T19:50:38Z)
• 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)
• Vox Populi, Vox AI? Using Language Models to Estimate German Public Opinion [45.84205238554709]
  We generate a synthetic sample of personas matching the individual characteristics of the 2017 German Longitudinal Election Study respondents. We ask the LLM GPT-3.5 to predict each respondent's vote choice and compare these predictions to the survey-based estimates. We find that GPT-3.5 does not predict citizens' vote choice accurately, exhibiting a bias towards the Green and Left parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T14:52:18Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making [0.0]
  This paper investigates the voting behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4 and LLaMA-2. We observed that the choice of voting methods and the presentation order influenced LLM voting outcomes. We found that varying the persona can reduce some of these biases and enhance alignment with human choices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T14:52:02Z)
• Can Large Language Models Capture Public Opinion about Global Warming? An Empirical Assessment of Algorithmic Fidelity and Bias [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their potential in social science research by emulating human perceptions and behaviors. This study assesses the algorithmic fidelity and bias of LLMs by utilizing two nationally representative climate change surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T01:32:59Z)

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.