Related papers: Embedding-based Approaches to Hyperpartisan News Detection

Related papers

Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
BiasLab: Toward Explainable Political Bias Detection with Dual-Axis Annotations and Rationale Indicators [0.0]
BiasLab is a dataset of 300 political news articles annotated for perceived ideological bias.<n>Each article is labeled by crowdworkers along two independent scales, assessing sentiment toward the Democratic and Republican parties.<n>We quantify inter-annotator agreement, analyze misalignment with source-level outlet bias, and organize the resulting labels into interpretable subsets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-21T23:50:42Z)
Navigating Nuance: In Quest for Political Truth [1.4127714091330967]
We evaluate the performance of the Llama-3 (70B) language model on the Media Bias Identification Benchmark (MBIB)<n>Our findings underscore the challenges of detecting political bias and highlight the potential of transfer learning methods to enhance future models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-01T09:24:47Z)
From Experts to the Public: Governing Multimodal Language Models in Politically Sensitive Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
This paper examines the governance of large language models (MM-LLMs) through individual and collective deliberation. We conducted a two-step study: first, interviews with 10 journalists established a baseline understanding of expert video interpretation; second, 114 individuals from the general public engaged in deliberation using Inclusive.AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
DocNet: Semantic Structure in Inductive Bias Detection Models [0.4779196219827508]
We present DocNet, a novel, inductive, and low-resource document embedding and political bias detection model. We demonstrate that the semantic structure of news articles from opposing political sides, as represented in document-level graph embeddings, have significant similarities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-16T14:51:12Z)
Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy [6.491009626125319]
We explore an augmented democracy system built on off-the-shelf LLMs fine-tuned to augment data on citizen's 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)
Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data [102.16105233826917]
Learning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models. There are several distinct approaches for preference fine-tuning, including supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), and contrastive learning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-22T17:20:18Z)
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)
All Things Considered: Detecting Partisan Events from News Media with Cross-Article Comparison [19.328425822355378]
We develop a latent variable-based framework to predict the ideology of news articles. Our results reveal the high-level form of media bias, which is present even among mainstream media with strong norms of objectivity and nonpartisanship.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-28T21:53:23Z)
Voting Booklet Bias: Stance Detection in Swiss Federal Communication [0.0]
We use recent stance detection methods to study the stance (for, against or neutral) of statements in official information booklets for voters. Our main goal is to answer the fundamental question: are topics to be voted on presented in a neutral way? Our findings have implications for the editorial process of future voting booklets and the design of better automated systems for analyzing political discourse.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-15T09:49:12Z)
Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z)
Computational Assessment of Hyperpartisanship in News Titles [55.92100606666497]
We first adopt a human-guided machine learning framework to develop a new dataset for hyperpartisan news title detection. Overall the Right media tends to use proportionally more hyperpartisan titles. We identify three major topics including foreign issues, political systems, and societal issues that are suggestive of hyperpartisanship in news titles.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-16T05:56:58Z)
NeuS: Neutral Multi-News Summarization for Mitigating Framing Bias [54.89737992911079]
We propose a new task, a neutral summary generation from multiple news headlines of the varying political spectrum. One of the most interesting observations is that generation models can hallucinate not only factually inaccurate or unverifiable content, but also politically biased content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-11T07:06:01Z)
A Machine Learning Pipeline to Examine Political Bias with Congressional Speeches [0.3062386594262859]
We give machine learning approaches to study political bias in two ideologically diverse social media forums: Gab and Twitter. Our proposed methods exploit the use of transcripts collected from political speeches in US congress to label the data. We also present a machine learning approach that combines features from cascades and text to forecast cascade's political bias with an accuracy of about 85%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-18T21:15:21Z)
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: Visual Communication of Uncertainty in Election Polls [56.8172499765118]
We discuss potential sources of bias in nowcasting and forecasting. Concepts are presented to attenuate the issue of falsely perceived accuracy. One key idea is the use of Probabilities of Events instead of party shares.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-28T07:02:24Z)
Mitigating Media Bias through Neutral Article Generation [39.29914845102368]
Existing mitigation work displays articles from multiple news outlets to provide diverse news coverage, but without neutralizing the bias inherent in each of the displayed articles. We propose a new task, a single neutralized article generation out of multiple biased articles, to facilitate more efficient access to balanced and unbiased information.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-01T08:37:26Z)

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