Frame In, Frame Out: Do LLMs Generate More Biased News Headlines than Humans?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.05406v1
• Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 16:46:24 GMT
• Title: Frame In, Frame Out: Do LLMs Generate More Biased News Headlines than Humans?
• Authors: Valeria Pastorino, Nafise Sadat Moosavi,
• Abstract summary: framing in media critically shapes public perception by selectively emphasizing some details while downplaying others.<n>With the rise of large language models in automated news and content creation, there is growing concern that these systems may introduce or even amplify framing biases compared to human authors.<n>Our analysis reveals that, particularly in politically and socially sensitive contexts, LLMs tend to exhibit more pronounced framing than their human counterparts.
• Score: 11.578398987157925
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Framing in media critically shapes public perception by selectively emphasizing some details while downplaying others. With the rise of large language models in automated news and content creation, there is growing concern that these systems may introduce or even amplify framing biases compared to human authors. In this paper, we explore how framing manifests in both out-of-the-box and fine-tuned LLM-generated news content. Our analysis reveals that, particularly in politically and socially sensitive contexts, LLMs tend to exhibit more pronounced framing than their human counterparts. In addition, we observe significant variation in framing tendencies across different model architectures, with some models displaying notably higher biases. These findings point to the need for effective post-training mitigation strategies and tighter evaluation frameworks to ensure that automated news content upholds the standards of balanced reporting.

Related papers

• Profiling News Media for Factuality and Bias Using LLMs and the Fact-Checking Methodology of Human Experts [29.95198868148809]
  We propose a novel methodology that emulates the criteria that professional fact-checkers use to assess the factuality and political bias of an entire outlet.<n>We provide an in-depth error analysis of the effect of media popularity and region on model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T15:49:20Z)
• Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, driving advancements in machine translation, summarization, and conversational agents.<n>Recent studies indicate that LLMs remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks designed to elicit biased responses.<n>This work proposes a scalable benchmarking framework to evaluate LLM robustness against adversarial bias elicitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:00:59Z)
• 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)
• Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models for News Recommendation [68.90354828533535]
  This paper explores the potential impact of cognitive biases on large language models (LLMs) based news recommender systems. We discuss strategies to mitigate these biases through data augmentation, prompt engineering and learning algorithms aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T18:42:07Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Investigating Bias in LLM-Based Bias Detection: Disparities between LLMs and Human Perception [13.592532358127293]
  We investigate the presence and nature of bias within Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We probe whether LLMs exhibit biases, particularly in political bias prediction and text continuation tasks.<n>We propose debiasing strategies, including prompt engineering and model fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T00:59:48Z)
• From Skepticism to Acceptance: Simulating the Attitude Dynamics Toward Fake News [38.990330255607276]
  We introduce a Fake news propagation simulation framework based on large language models (LLMs)<n>Our simulation results uncover patterns in fake news propagation related to topic relevance, and individual traits, aligning with real-world observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T15:40:13Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• 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)
• Harnessing the Power of LLMs: Evaluating Human-AI Text Co-Creation through the Lens of News Headline Generation [58.31430028519306]
  This study explores how humans can best leverage LLMs for writing and how interacting with these models affects feelings of ownership and trust in the writing process. While LLMs alone can generate satisfactory news headlines, on average, human control is needed to fix undesirable model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T15:11:01Z)
• Framing Unpacked: A Semi-Supervised Interpretable Multi-View Model of Media Frames [32.06056273913706]
  We develop a novel semi-supervised model for understanding how news media frame political issues. The model learns to embed local information about the events and related actors in a news article through an auto-encoding framework. Our experiments show that our model outperforms previous models of frame prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-22T13:05:53Z)

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.