Unpacking Political Bias in Large Language Models: Insights Across Topic Polarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16746v2
• Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:04:54 GMT
• Title: Unpacking Political Bias in Large Language Models: Insights Across Topic Polarization
• Authors: Kaiqi Yang, Hang Li, Yucheng Chu, Yuping Lin, Tai-Quan Peng, Hui Liu,
• Abstract summary: Political bias, as a universal phenomenon in human society, may be transferred to Large Language Models. Political biases evolve with model scale and release date, and are also influenced by regional factors of LLMs.
• Score: 6.253258189994455
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to generate responses on social topics due to their world knowledge and generative capabilities. Beyond reasoning and generation performance, political bias is an essential issue that warrants attention. Political bias, as a universal phenomenon in human society, may be transferred to LLMs and distort LLMs' behaviors of information acquisition and dissemination with humans, leading to unequal access among different groups of people. To prevent LLMs from reproducing and reinforcing political biases, and to encourage fairer LLM-human interactions, comprehensively examining political bias in popular LLMs becomes urgent and crucial. In this study, we systematically measure the political biases in a wide range of LLMs, using a curated set of questions addressing political bias in various contexts. Our findings reveal distinct patterns in how LLMs respond to political topics. For highly polarized topics, most LLMs exhibit a pronounced left-leaning bias. Conversely, less polarized topics elicit greater consensus, with similar response patterns across different LLMs. Additionally, we analyze how LLM characteristics, including release date, model scale, and region of origin affect political bias. The results indicate political biases evolve with model scale and release date, and are also influenced by regional factors of LLMs.

Related papers

• Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes [20.407518082067437]
  This study explores the challenge of aligning large language models with human intentions and values. Previous research has highlighted LLMs' propensity to display political leanings. We quantify these deviations and identify the conditions that cause them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T07:24:23Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• 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)
• Measuring Political Bias in Large Language Models: What Is Said and How It Is Said [46.1845409187583]
  We propose to measure political bias in LLMs by analyzing both the content and style of their generated content regarding political issues. Our proposed measure looks at different political issues such as reproductive rights and climate change, at both the content (the substance of the generation) and the style (the lexical polarity) of such bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T18:22:48Z)
• 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)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• 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)
• The Political Preferences of LLMs [0.0]
  I administer 11 political orientation tests, designed to identify the political preferences of the test taker, to 24 state-of-the-art conversational LLMs. Most conversational LLMs generate responses that are diagnosed by most political test instruments as manifesting preferences for left-of-center viewpoints. I demonstrate that LLMs can be steered towards specific locations in the political spectrum through Supervised Fine-Tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T02:43:10Z)
• 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)

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.