Populism Meets AI: Advancing Populism Research with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07458v3
• Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 01:32:05 GMT
• Title: Populism Meets AI: Advancing Populism Research with LLMs
• Authors: Yujin J. Jung, Eduardo Ryô Tamaki, Julia Chatterley, Grant Mitchell, Semir Dzebo, Cristóbal Sandoval, Levente Littvay, Kirk A. Hawkins,
• Abstract summary: We present the results from a rubric and anchor guided chain of thought (CoT) prompting approach that mirrors human coder training.<n>We replicate the process used to train human coders by prompting the LLM with an adapted version of the same documentation to guide the model's reasoning.<n>Our findings reveal that this domain specific prompting strategy enables the LLM to achieve classification accuracy on par with expert human coders.
• Score: 0.7854037738925822
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Measuring the ideational content of populism remains a challenge. Traditional strategies based on textual analysis have been critical for building the field's foundations and providing a valid, objective indicator of populist framing. Yet these approaches are costly, time consuming, and difficult to scale across languages, contexts, and large corpora. Here we present the results from a rubric and anchor guided chain of thought (CoT) prompting approach that mirrors human coder training. By leveraging the Global Populism Database (GPD), a comprehensive dataset of global leaders' speeches annotated for degrees of populism, we replicate the process used to train human coders by prompting the LLM with an adapted version of the same documentation to guide the model's reasoning. We then test multiple proprietary and open weight models by replicating scores in the GPD. Our findings reveal that this domain specific prompting strategy enables the LLM to achieve classification accuracy on par with expert human coders, demonstrating its ability to navigate the nuanced, context sensitive aspects of populism.

Related papers

• A word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in LLMs compared to humans [0.0]
  We present a novel word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in Large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method taps into the implicit relational structures encoded in LLMs, providing both quantitative and qualitative assessments of bias.<n>To demonstrate the utility of our methodology, we apply it to both humans and several widely used LLMs to investigate social biases related to gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political party.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T15:03:18Z)
• Adding LLMs to the psycholinguistic norming toolbox: A practical guide to getting the most out of human ratings [5.019061035507826]
  We present a comprehensive methodology for estimating word characteristics with Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>A major emphasis in the guide is the validation of LLM-generated data with human "gold standard" norms.<n>We also present a software framework that implements our methodology and supports both commercial and open-weight models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T20:11:23Z)
• How Do LLM-Generated Texts Impact Term-Based Retrieval Models? [76.92519309816008]
  This paper investigates the influence of large language models (LLMs) on term-based retrieval models.<n>Our linguistic analysis reveals that LLM-generated texts exhibit smoother high-frequency and steeper low-frequency Zipf slopes.<n>Our study further explores whether term-based retrieval models demonstrate source bias, concluding that these models prioritize documents whose term distributions closely correspond to those of the queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T06:43:27Z)
• Identifying Fine-grained Forms of Populism in Political Discourse: A Case Study on Donald Trump's Presidential Campaigns [17.242754326635833]
  This paper examines whether Large Language Models can identify and classify fine-grained forms of populism.<n>We evaluate a range of pre-trained (large) language models, both open-weight and proprietary, across multiple prompting paradigms.<n>We find that a fine-tuned RoBERTa classifier vastly outperforms all new-era instruction-tuned LLMs, unless fine-tuned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T14:18:54Z)
• A Survey of Direct Preference Optimization [103.59317151002693]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented generative capabilities.<n>Their alignment with human values remains critical for ensuring helpful and harmless deployments.<n>Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has recently gained prominence as a streamlined alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T08:45:15Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• A Bayesian Approach to Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Authorship Attribution [57.309390098903]
  Authorship attribution aims to identify the origin or author of a document. Large Language Models (LLMs) with their deep reasoning capabilities and ability to maintain long-range textual associations offer a promising alternative. Our results on the IMDb and blog datasets show an impressive 85% accuracy in one-shot authorship classification across ten authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T04:14:23Z)
• From Linguistic Giants to Sensory Maestros: A Survey on Cross-Modal Reasoning with Large Language Models [56.9134620424985]
  Cross-modal reasoning (CMR) is increasingly recognized as a crucial capability in the progression toward more sophisticated artificial intelligence systems. The recent trend of deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) to tackle CMR tasks has marked a new mainstream of approaches for enhancing their effectiveness. This survey offers a nuanced exposition of current methodologies applied in CMR using LLMs, classifying these into a detailed three-tiered taxonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T02:51:54Z)
• Improving Dialogue Agents by Decomposing One Global Explicit Annotation with Local Implicit Multimodal Feedback [71.55265615594669]
  We describe an approach for aligning an LLM-based dialogue agent based on global (i.e., dialogue-level) rewards, while also taking into account naturally-occurring multimodal signals. We run quantitative and qualitative human studies to evaluate the performance of our GELI approach, and find that it shows consistent improvements across various conversational metrics compared to baseline methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T20:21:26Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation [22.517544562890663]
  This paper traces the historical trajectory of Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluations, from the foundational questions posed by Alan Turing to the modern era of AI research. We emphasize the pressing need for a unified evaluation system, given the broader societal implications of these models. This work serves as a call for the AI community to collaboratively address the challenges of LLM evaluation, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and societal benefit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T17:24:50Z)
• Re-Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [87.46256176508376]
  We introduce a simple, yet general and effective prompting method, Re2, to enhance the reasoning capabilities of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike most thought-eliciting prompting methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Re2 shifts the focus to the input by processing questions twice, thereby enhancing the understanding process. We evaluate Re2 on extensive reasoning benchmarks across 14 datasets, spanning 112 experiments, to validate its effectiveness and generality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T14:36:23Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)

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.