Testing Conviction: An Argumentative Framework for Measuring LLM Political Stability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17052v2
• Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:47:22 GMT
• Title: Testing Conviction: An Argumentative Framework for Measuring LLM Political Stability
• Authors: Shariar Kabir, Kevin Esterling, Yue Dong,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models shape political discourse, yet exhibit inconsistent responses when challenged.<n>We classify responses as stable or performative ideological positioning.<n>We show ideological stability is topic-dependent and challenge the notion of monolithic LLM ideologies.
• Score: 3.84754844062131
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly shape political discourse, yet exhibit inconsistent responses when challenged. While prior research categorizes LLMs as left- or right-leaning based on single-prompt responses, a critical question remains: Do these classifications reflect stable ideologies or superficial mimicry? Existing methods cannot distinguish between genuine ideological alignment and performative text generation. To address this, we propose a framework for evaluating ideological depth through (1) argumentative consistency and (2) uncertainty quantification. Testing 12 LLMs on 19 economic policies from the Political Compass Test, we classify responses as stable or performative ideological positioning. Results show 95% of left-leaning models and 89% of right-leaning models demonstrate behavior consistent with our classifications across different experimental conditions. Furthermore, semantic entropy strongly validates our classifications (AUROC=0.78), revealing uncertainty's relationship to ideological consistency. Our findings demonstrate that ideological stability is topic-dependent and challenge the notion of monolithic LLM ideologies, and offer a robust way to distinguish genuine alignment from performative behavior.

Related papers

• Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
  We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
• Political Ideology Shifts in Large Language Models [6.062377561249039]
  We investigate how adopting synthetic personas influences ideological expression in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our analysis reveals four consistent patterns: (i) larger models display broader and more implicit ideological coverage; (ii) susceptibility to explicit ideological cues grows with scale; (iii) models respond more strongly to right-authoritarian than to left-libertarian priming; and (iv) thematic content in persona descriptions induces ideological shifts, which amplify with size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T00:16:38Z)
• On the Inevitability of Left-Leaning Political Bias in Aligned Language Models [0.0]
  There are concerns that large language models (LLMs) exhibit a left-wing political bias.<n>I argue that intelligent systems that are trained to be harmless and honest must necessarily exhibit left-wing political bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T07:37:28Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Adversarial Alignment for LLMs Requires Simpler, Reproducible, and More Measurable Objectives [52.863024096759816]
  Misaligned research objectives have hindered progress in adversarial robustness research over the past decade. We argue that realigned objectives are necessary for meaningful progress in adversarial alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T15:28:40Z)
• Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes [20.407518082067437]
  This study examines the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values for mitigate the domain of politics. We analyze the factors that contribute to LLMs' deviations from empirical positions on political issues. We find that while LLMs can mimic certain political parties' positions, they often exaggerate these positions more than human survey respondents do.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T07:24:23Z)
• Value Compass Leaderboard: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs, aligning their values with humans has become imperative.<n>Existing evaluations focus narrowly on safety risks such as bias and toxicity.<n>Existing benchmarks are prone to data contamination.<n>The pluralistic nature of human values across individuals and cultures is largely ignored in measuring LLMs value alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models for Faithful Integrity Against Opposing Argument [71.33552795870544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks.<n>They can be easily misled by unfaithful arguments during conversations, even when their original statements are correct.<n>We propose a novel framework, named Alignment for Faithful Integrity with Confidence Estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T16:38:21Z)
• Beyond Partisan Leaning: A Comparative Analysis of Political Bias in Large Language Models [6.549047699071195]
  This study adopts a persona-free, topic-specific approach to evaluate political behavior in large language models.<n>We analyze responses from 43 large language models developed in the U.S., Europe, China, and the Middle East.<n>Findings show most models lean center-left or left ideologically and vary in their nonpartisan engagement patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-21T19:42:40Z)
• Mapping and Influencing the Political Ideology of Large Language Models using Synthetic Personas [5.237116285113809]
  We map the political distribution of persona-based prompted large language models using the Political Compass Test (PCT)<n>Our experiments reveal that synthetic personas predominantly cluster in the left-libertarian quadrant, with models demonstrating varying degrees of responsiveness when prompted with explicit ideological descriptors.<n>While all models demonstrate significant shifts towards right-authoritarian positions, they exhibit more limited shifts towards left-libertarian positions, suggesting an asymmetric response to ideological manipulation that may reflect inherent biases in model training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:36:18Z)
• Political-LLM: Large Language Models in Political Science [159.95299889946637]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in political science tasks.<n>Political-LLM aims to advance the comprehensive understanding of integrating LLMs into computational political science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T08:47:50Z)
• Belief in the Machine: Investigating Epistemological Blind Spots of Language Models [51.63547465454027]
  Language models (LMs) are essential for reliable decision-making in fields like healthcare, law, and journalism. This study systematically evaluates the capabilities of modern LMs, including GPT-4, Claude-3, and Llama-3, using a new dataset, KaBLE. Our results reveal key limitations. First, while LMs achieve 86% accuracy on factual scenarios, their performance drops significantly with false scenarios. Second, LMs struggle with recognizing and affirming personal beliefs, especially when those beliefs contradict factual data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T16:38:20Z)
• 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.<n>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)
• 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)
• Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMs [13.036825846417006]
  We propose a series of tests to assess the reliability and consistency of large language models' stances on political statements. We study models ranging in size from 7B to 70B parameters and find that their reliability increases with parameter count. Larger models show overall stronger alignment with left-leaning parties but differ among policy programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T16:19:37Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.