A Systematic Analysis of Biases in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.15792v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 03:38:08 GMT
• Title: A Systematic Analysis of Biases in Large Language Models
• Authors: Xulang Zhang, Rui Mao, Erik Cambria,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly become indispensable tools for acquiring information and supporting human decision-making.<n>This study examines their underlying biases and inclinations across the dimensions of politics, ideology, alliance, language, and gender.<n>Results indicate that while the LLMs are aligned to be neutral and impartial, they still show biases and affinities of different types.
• Score: 40.23320093091831
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly become indispensable tools for acquiring information and supporting human decision-making. However, ensuring that these models uphold fairness across varied contexts is critical to their safe and responsible deployment. In this study, we undertake a comprehensive examination of four widely adopted LLMs, probing their underlying biases and inclinations across the dimensions of politics, ideology, alliance, language, and gender. Through a series of carefully designed experiments, we investigate their political neutrality using news summarization, ideological biases through news stance classification, tendencies toward specific geopolitical alliances via United Nations voting patterns, language bias in the context of multilingual story completion, and gender-related affinities as revealed by responses to the World Values Survey. Results indicate that while the LLMs are aligned to be neutral and impartial, they still show biases and affinities of different types.

Related papers

• 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)
• Geopolitical biases in LLMs: what are the "good" and the "bad" countries according to contemporary language models [52.00270888041742]
  We introduce a novel dataset with neutral event descriptions and contrasting viewpoints from different countries.<n>Our findings show significant geopolitical biases, with models favoring specific national narratives.<n>Simple debiasing prompts had a limited effect on reducing these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T10:45:17Z)
• Mapping Geopolitical Bias in 11 Large Language Models: A Bilingual, Dual-Framing Analysis of U.S.-China Tensions [2.8202443616982884]
  This study systematically analyzes geopolitical bias across 11 prominent Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We generated 19,712 prompts designed to detect ideological leanings in model outputs.<n>U.S.-based models predominantly favored Pro-U.S. stances, while Chinese-origin models exhibited pronounced Pro-China biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T03:38:17Z)
• Echoes of Power: Investigating Geopolitical Bias in US and China Large Language Models [2.1028463367241033]
  We investigate the geopolitical biases in US and Chinese Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our findings show notable biases in both models, reflecting distinct ideological perspectives and cultural influences.<n>This study highlights the potential of LLMs to shape public discourse and underscores the importance of critically assessing AI-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T19:53:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.