Language, Culture, and Ideology: Personalizing Offensiveness Detection in Political Tweets with Reasoning LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02351v1
• Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:20:44 GMT
• Title: Language, Culture, and Ideology: Personalizing Offensiveness Detection in Political Tweets with Reasoning LLMs
• Authors: Dzmitry Pihulski, Jan Kocoń,
• Abstract summary: We explore how large language models assess offensiveness in political discourse when prompted to adopt specific political and cultural perspectives.<n>Using a multilingual subset of the MD-Agreement dataset centered on tweets from the 2020 US elections, we evaluate several recent LLMs.<n>Our results show that larger models with explicit reasoning abilities are more consistent and sensitive to ideological and cultural variation.
• Score: 0.3437656066916039
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We explore how large language models (LLMs) assess offensiveness in political discourse when prompted to adopt specific political and cultural perspectives. Using a multilingual subset of the MD-Agreement dataset centered on tweets from the 2020 US elections, we evaluate several recent LLMs - including DeepSeek-R1, o4-mini, GPT-4.1-mini, Qwen3, Gemma, and Mistral - tasked with judging tweets as offensive or non-offensive from the viewpoints of varied political personas (far-right, conservative, centrist, progressive) across English, Polish, and Russian contexts. Our results show that larger models with explicit reasoning abilities (e.g., DeepSeek-R1, o4-mini) are more consistent and sensitive to ideological and cultural variation, while smaller models often fail to capture subtle distinctions. We find that reasoning capabilities significantly improve both the personalization and interpretability of offensiveness judgments, suggesting that such mechanisms are key to adapting LLMs for nuanced sociopolitical text classification across languages and ideologies.

Related papers

• 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)
• Do Political Opinions Transfer Between Western Languages? An Analysis of Unaligned and Aligned Multilingual LLMs [8.34389139211844]
  Cross-cultural differences in political opinions may translate to cross-lingual differences in multilingual large language models (MLLMs)<n>We analyze whether opinions transfer between languages or whether there are separate opinions for each language in MLLMs of various sizes across five Western languages.<n>We conclude that in Western language contexts, political opinions transfer between languages, demonstrating the challenges in achieving explicit socio-linguistic, cultural, and political alignment of MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T16:33:45Z)
• Multilingual Political Views of Large Language Models: Identification and Steering [9.340686908318776]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in everyday tools and applications, raising concerns about their potential influence on political views.<n>We evaluate seven models across 14 languages using the Political Compass Test with 11 semantically equivalent paraphrases per statement to ensure robust measurement.<n>Our results reveal that larger models consistently shift toward libertarian-left positions, with significant variations across languages and model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T12:42:35Z)
• 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)
• Probing the Subtle Ideological Manipulation of Large Language Models [0.3745329282477067]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but concerns have emerged about their susceptibility to ideological manipulation.<n>We introduce a novel multi-task dataset designed to reflect diverse ideological positions through tasks such as ideological QA, statement ranking, manifesto cloze completion, and Congress bill comprehension.<n>Our findings indicate that fine-tuning significantly enhances nuanced ideological alignment, while explicit prompts provide only minor refinements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T13:11:50Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• CIVICS: Building a Dataset for Examining Culturally-Informed Values in Large Language Models [59.22460740026037]
  "CIVICS: Culturally-Informed & Values-Inclusive Corpus for Societal impacts" dataset is designed to evaluate the social and cultural variation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We create a hand-crafted, multilingual dataset of value-laden prompts which address specific socially sensitive topics, including LGBTQI rights, social welfare, immigration, disability rights, and surrogacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T20:19:10Z)
• 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)
• 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.