Identifying Algorithmic and Domain-Specific Bias in Parliamentary Debate Summarisation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14221v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:49:33 GMT
• Title: Identifying Algorithmic and Domain-Specific Bias in Parliamentary Debate Summarisation
• Abstract summary: This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) to summarise plenary debates from the European Parliament.<n>We propose a structured, multi-stage summarisation framework that improves textual coherence and content fidelity.<n>We find evidence of consistent positional and partisan biases, with certain speakers systematically under-represented or misattributed.
• Score: 13.982513887272683
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The automated summarisation of parliamentary debates using large language models (LLMs) offers a promising way to make complex legislative discourse more accessible to the public. However, such summaries must not only be accurate and concise but also equitably represent the views and contributions of all speakers. This paper explores the use of LLMs to summarise plenary debates from the European Parliament and investigates the algorithmic and representational biases that emerge in this context. We propose a structured, multi-stage summarisation framework that improves textual coherence and content fidelity, while enabling the systematic analysis of how speaker attributes -- such as speaking order or political affiliation -- influence the visibility and accuracy of their contributions in the final summaries. Through our experiments using both proprietary and open-weight LLMs, we find evidence of consistent positional and partisan biases, with certain speakers systematically under-represented or misattributed. Our analysis shows that these biases vary by model and summarisation strategy, with hierarchical approaches offering the greatest potential to reduce disparity. These findings underscore the need for domain-sensitive evaluation metrics and ethical oversight in the deployment of LLMs for democratic applications.

Related papers

• Who Speaks Matters: Authority-Aware Multi-View RAG over Italian Parliamentary Proceedings [0.3593955557310285]
  ParliamentRAG is a topic-dependent authority model for parliamentary transcripts.<n>It retrieves relevant speech chunks, identifies topic-relevant experts, and generates a summary synthesizing their perspectives.<n>It is evaluated against Google NotebookLM on 15 policy topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T16:07:23Z)
• Evaluating LLM-Driven Summarisation of Parliamentary Debates with Computational Argumentation [12.06334493909551]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to enable automated summarisation at scale.<n>Existing automated summarisation metrics have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgements of consistency.<n>We propose a formal framework for evaluating parliamentary debate summaries that grounds argument structures in the contested proposals up for debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T11:01:53Z)
• On Theoretically-Driven LLM Agents for Multi-Dimensional Discourse Analysis [0.0]
  This paper presents a comparative multi-agent framework designed to quantify the benefits of incorporating explicit theoretical knowledge for this task.<n>We utilise a dataset of annotated political debates to establish a new standard encompassing four distinct rephrase functions.<n>We evaluate two parallel LLM-based agent systems: one enhanced by argumentation theory via Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and an identical zero-shot baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T10:30:39Z)
• Connecting the Dots: Training-Free Visual Grounding via Agentic Reasoning [63.109585527799005]
  GroundingAgent is a visual grounding framework that operates without task-specific fine-tuning.<n>It achieves an average zero-shot grounding accuracy of 65.1 % on widely-used benchmarks.<n>It also offers strong interpretability, transparently illustrating each reasoning step.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-24T03:11:08Z)
• Understanding Textual Capability Degradation in Speech LLMs via Parameter Importance Analysis [54.53152524778821]
  integration of speech into Large Language Models (LLMs) has substantially expanded their capabilities, but often at the cost of weakening their core textual competence.<n>We propose an analytical framework based on parameter importance estimation, which reveals that fine-tuning for speech introduces a textual importance distribution shift.<n>We investigate two mitigation strategies: layer-wise learning rate scheduling and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA)<n> Experimental results show that both approaches better maintain textual competence than full fine-tuning, while also improving downstream spoken question answering performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T09:04:40Z)
• Explaining multimodal LLMs via intra-modal token interactions [55.27436637894534]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse vision-language tasks, yet their internal decision-making mechanisms remain insufficiently understood.<n>We propose enhancing interpretability by leveraging intra-modal interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T14:39:13Z)
• Implicit Counterfactual Learning for Audio-Visual Segmentation [50.69377287012591]
  We propose the implicit counterfactual framework (ICF) to achieve unbiased cross-modal understanding.<n>Due to the lack of semantics, heterogeneous representations may lead to erroneous matches.<n>We introduce the multi-granularity implicit text (MIT) involving video-, segment- and frame-level as the bridge to establish the modality-shared space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T11:46:35Z)
• Reasoning or Not? A Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning LLMs for Dialogue Summarization [9.994839971567542]
  We present the first comprehensive and systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs and non-reasoning LLMs.<n>Contrary to trends in other reasoning-intensive tasks, our findings show that explicit stepwise reasoning does not consistently improve dialogue summarization quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T21:02:41Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• What are they talking about? Benchmarking Large Language Models for Knowledge-Grounded Discussion Summarization [19.616500850017363]
  This work aims to address the limitation of outside observer confusion in existing dialogue summarization systems.<n>We model the task output as background and opinion summaries and define two standardized summarization patterns.<n>We evaluate 12 LLMs under structured-prompt and self-reflection paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T15:52:24Z)
• KOKKAI DOC: An LLM-driven framework for scaling parliamentary representatives [0.0]
  This paper introduces an LLM-driven framework designed to accurately scale the political issue stances of parliamentary representatives.<n>By leveraging advanced natural language processing techniques and large language models, the proposed methodology refines and enhances previous approaches.<n>The framework incorporates three major innovations: (1) de-noising parliamentary speeches via summarization to produce cleaner, more consistent opinion embeddings; (2) automatic extraction of axes of political controversy from legislators' speech summaries; and (3) a diachronic analysis that tracks the evolution of party positions over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-11T21:03:53Z)
• Evaluating book summaries from internal knowledge in Large Language Models: a cross-model and semantic consistency approach [0.0]
  We study the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate comprehensive and accurate book summaries.<n>We examine whether these models can synthesize meaningful narratives that align with established human interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T15:36:24Z)
• SySLLM: Generating Synthesized Policy Summaries for Reinforcement Learning Agents Using Large Language Models [10.848775419008442]
  We present SySLLM, a novel method that employs synthesis summarization, utilizing large language models' (LLMs) extensive world knowledge and ability to capture patterns.<n>SySLLM summaries are preferred over demonstration-based policy summaries and match or surpass their performance in objective agent identification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T16:10:14Z)
• Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates [0.0]
  We propose a framework that interprets large language models (LLMs) as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• Hierarchical Indexing for Retrieval-Augmented Opinion Summarization [60.5923941324953]
  We propose a method for unsupervised abstractive opinion summarization that combines the attributability and scalability of extractive approaches with the coherence and fluency of Large Language Models (LLMs) Our method, HIRO, learns an index structure that maps sentences to a path through a semantically organized discrete hierarchy. At inference time, we populate the index and use it to identify and retrieve clusters of sentences containing popular opinions from input reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T10:38:07Z)
• Sparsity-Guided Holistic Explanation for LLMs with Interpretable Inference-Time Intervention [53.896974148579346]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented breakthroughs in various natural language processing domains. The enigmatic black-box'' nature of LLMs remains a significant challenge for interpretability, hampering transparent and accountable applications. We propose a novel methodology anchored in sparsity-guided techniques, aiming to provide a holistic interpretation of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T19:55:58Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models can Contrastively Refine their Generation for Better Sentence Representation Learning [57.74233319453229]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a groundbreaking technology and their unparalleled text generation capabilities have sparked interest in their application to the fundamental sentence representation learning task. We propose MultiCSR, a multi-level contrastive sentence representation learning framework that decomposes the process of prompting LLMs to generate a corpus. Our experiments reveal that MultiCSR enables a less advanced LLM to surpass the performance of ChatGPT, while applying it to ChatGPT achieves better state-of-the-art results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T03:21:43Z)
• Self-supervised Text-independent Speaker Verification using Prototypical Momentum Contrastive Learning [58.14807331265752]
  We show that better speaker embeddings can be learned by momentum contrastive learning. We generalize the self-supervised framework to a semi-supervised scenario where only a small portion of the data is labeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-13T23:23:39Z)

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.