Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14294v3
• Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 06:49:21 GMT
• Title: Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes
• Authors: Sullam Jeoung, Yubin Ge, Haohan Wang, Jana Diesner,
• Abstract summary: This study examines the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values for mitigate the domain of politics.<n>We analyze the factors that contribute to LLMs' deviations from empirical positions on political issues.<n>We find that while LLMs can mimic certain political parties' positions, they often exaggerate these positions more than human survey respondents do.
• Score: 20.407518082067437
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Examining the alignment of large language models (LLMs) has become increasingly important, e.g., when LLMs fail to operate as intended. This study examines the alignment of LLMs with human values for the domain of politics. Prior research has shown that LLM-generated outputs can include political leanings and mimic the stances of political parties on various issues. However, the extent and conditions under which LLMs deviate from empirical positions are insufficiently examined. To address this gap, we analyze the factors that contribute to LLMs' deviations from empirical positions on political issues, aiming to quantify these deviations and identify the conditions that cause them. Drawing on findings from cognitive science about representativeness heuristics, i.e., situations where humans lean on representative attributes of a target group in a way that leads to exaggerated beliefs, we scrutinize LLM responses through this heuristics' lens. We conduct experiments to determine how LLMs inflate predictions about political parties, which results in stereotyping. We find that while LLMs can mimic certain political parties' positions, they often exaggerate these positions more than human survey respondents do. Also, LLMs tend to overemphasize representativeness more than humans. This study highlights the susceptibility of LLMs to representativeness heuristics, suggesting a potential vulnerability of LLMs that facilitates political stereotyping. We also test prompt-based mitigation strategies, finding that strategies that can mitigate representative heuristics in humans are also effective in reducing the influence of representativeness on LLM-generated responses.

Related papers

• Better Aligned with Survey Respondents or Training Data? Unveiling Political Leanings of LLMs on U.S. Supreme Court Cases [24.622980403581018]
  We empirically examine how the values and biases embedded in training corpora shape model outputs. As a case study, we focus on probing the political leanings of LLMs in 32 U.S. Supreme Court cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:16:17Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes. This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Unpacking Political Bias in Large Language Models: Insights Across Topic Polarization [6.253258189994455]
  Political bias, as a universal phenomenon in human society, may be transferred to Large Language Models.<n>Political biases evolve with model scale and release date, and are also influenced by regional factors of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-21T19:42:40Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Transforming Scholarly Landscapes: Influence of Large Language Models on Academic Fields beyond Computer Science [77.31665252336157]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have ushered in a transformative era in Natural Language Processing (NLP) This work empirically examines the influence and use of LLMs in fields beyond NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T01:32:35Z)
• Examining the Influence of Political Bias on Large Language Model Performance in Stance Classification [5.8229466650067065]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T01:11:38Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Inducing Political Bias Allows Language Models Anticipate Partisan Reactions to Controversies [5.958974943807783]
  This study addresses the challenge of understanding political bias in digitized discourse using Large Language Models (LLMs) We present a comprehensive analytical framework, consisting of Partisan Bias Divergence Assessment and Partisan Class Tendency Prediction. Our findings reveal the model's effectiveness in capturing emotional and moral nuances, albeit with some challenges in stance detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:57:53Z)
• 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)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)

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.