Reasoning Boosts Opinion Alignment in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01214v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 18:19:44 GMT
• Title: Reasoning Boosts Opinion Alignment in LLMs
• Abstract summary: We study whether reasoning can improve opinion alignment.<n>Motivated by the recent advancement in mathematical reasoning enabled by reinforcement learning (RL), we train models to produce profile-consistent answers.<n>We evaluate our approach on three datasets covering U.S., European, and Swiss politics.
• Score: 30.074886272342777
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Opinion modeling aims to capture individual or group political preferences, enabling applications such as digital democracies, where models could help shape fairer and more popular policies. Given their versatility, strong generalization capabilities, and demonstrated success across diverse text-to-text applications, large language models (LLMs) are natural candidates for this task. However, due to their statistical nature and limited causal understanding, they tend to produce biased opinions when prompted naively. In this work, we study whether reasoning can improve opinion alignment. Motivated by the recent advancement in mathematical reasoning enabled by reinforcement learning (RL), we train models to produce profile-consistent answers through structured reasoning. We evaluate our approach on three datasets covering U.S., European, and Swiss politics. Results indicate that reasoning enhances opinion modeling and is competitive with strong baselines, but does not fully remove bias, highlighting the need for additional mechanisms to build faithful political digital twins using LLMs. By releasing both our method and datasets, we establish a solid baseline to support future research on LLM opinion alignment.

Related papers

• FairReason: Balancing Reasoning and Social Bias in MLLMs [54.26091556079722]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) already achieve state-of-the-art results across a wide range of tasks and modalities.<n>Recent studies explore advanced prompting schemes and post-training fine-tuning to push their reasoning ability further.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T19:57:22Z)
• Passing the Turing Test in Political Discourse: Fine-Tuning LLMs to Mimic Polarized Social Media Comments [0.0]
  This study explores the extent to which fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can replicate and amplify polarizing discourse.<n>Using a curated dataset of politically charged discussions extracted from Reddit, we fine-tune an open-source LLM to produce context-aware and ideologically aligned responses.<n>The results indicate that, when trained on partisan data, LLMs are capable of producing highly plausible and provocative comments, often indistinguishable from those written by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:41:26Z)
• 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)
• How LLMs Fail to Support Fact-Checking [4.918358353535447]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can amplify online misinformation, but show promise in tackling misinformation.<n>We empirically study the capabilities of three LLMs -- ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude -- in countering political misinformation.<n>Our findings suggest that models struggle to ground their responses in real news sources, and tend to prefer citing left-leaning sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T07:12:03Z)
• 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)
• Interpreting Bias in Large Language Models: A Feature-Based Approach [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable performance across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This paper investigates the propagation of biases within LLMs through a novel feature-based analytical approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T07:28:15Z)
• 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)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• 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)
• Self-Contradictory Reasoning Evaluation and Detection [31.452161594896978]
  We investigate self-contradictory (Self-Contra) reasoning, where the model reasoning does not support its answers. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves in reasoning tasks involving contextual information understanding or commonsense. We find that GPT-4 can detect Self-Contra with a 52.2% F1 score, much lower compared to 66.7% for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T06:22:17Z)
• 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.