The Impact of Ideological Discourses in RAG: A Case Study with COVID-19 Treatments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.14838v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 05:32:30 GMT
• Title: The Impact of Ideological Discourses in RAG: A Case Study with COVID-19 Treatments
• Abstract summary: This paper studies the impact of retrieved ideological texts on the outputs of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our corpus is based on 1,117 academic articles representing discourses about controversial and endorsed treatments for the disease.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper studies the impact of retrieved ideological texts on the outputs of large language models (LLMs). While interest in understanding ideology in LLMs has recently increased, little attention has been given to this issue in the context of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). To fill this gap, we design an external knowledge source based on ideological loaded texts about COVID-19 treatments. Our corpus is based on 1,117 academic articles representing discourses about controversial and endorsed treatments for the disease. We propose a corpus linguistics framework, based on Lexical Multidimensional Analysis (LMDA), to identify the ideologies within the corpus. LLMs are tasked to answer questions derived from three identified ideological dimensions, and two types of contextual prompts are adopted: the first comprises the user question and ideological texts; and the second contains the question, ideological texts, and LMDA descriptions. Ideological alignment between reference ideological texts and LLMs' responses is assessed using cosine similarity for lexical and semantic representations. Results demonstrate that LLMs' responses based on ideological retrieved texts are more aligned with the ideology encountered in the external knowledge, with the enhanced prompt further influencing LLMs' outputs. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying ideological discourses within the RAG framework in order to mitigate not just unintended ideological bias, but also the risks of malicious manipulation of such models.

Related papers

• How Temperature Shapes Ideological Discourse in Retrieval-Augmented Generation? [0.0]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has been increasingly adopted to reduce hallucinations.<n>Impact of ideological bias on large language models (LLMs) has been overlooked.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T16:36:59Z)
• The Periodic Table of LLM Reasoning: A Structured Survey of Reasoning Paradigms, Methods, and Failure Modes [55.42597391158023]
  This survey provides a systematic analysis of more than 300 recent papers from arXiv, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, Papers with Code, and the ACL Anthology.<n>We introduce a structured taxonomy of reasoning research, covering Chain-of-Thought reasoning, multi-hop reasoning, mathematical reasoning, common sense reasoning, visual and temporal reasoning, code and algorithmic reasoning, retrieval-augmented reasoning, tool-augmented and agentic reasoning, and reinforcement learning-based reasoning.<n>We synthesize recurring limitations and failure modes, such as reasoning hallucinations, brittle multi-step inference, weak causal abstraction, and poor cross
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T21:59:37Z)
• AdversarialCoT: Single-Document Retrieval Poisoning for LLM Reasoning [115.3243260783674]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language model (LLM) reasoning by retrieving external documents.<n>We study knowledge-base poisoning attacks in RAG, where an attacker injects malicious content into the retrieval corpus.<n>We propose AdversarialCoT, a query-specific attack that poisons only a single document in the corpus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T02:10:23Z)
• 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)
• Decoding the Mind of Large Language Models: A Quantitative Evaluation of Ideology and Biases [0.276240219662896]
  We propose a novel framework for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>By applying our framework to ChatGPT and Gemini, findings revealed that while LLMs generally maintain consistent opinions on many topics, their ideologies differ across models and languages.<n>Both models also exhibited problematic biases, unethical or unfair claims, which might have negative societal impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T00:52:06Z)
• 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)
• Talking Point based Ideological Discourse Analysis in News Events [62.18747509565779]
  We propose a framework motivated by the theory of ideological discourse analysis to analyze news articles related to real-world events.<n>Our framework represents the news articles using a relational structure - talking points, which captures the interaction between entities, their roles, and media frames along with a topic of discussion.<n>We evaluate our framework's ability to generate these perspectives through automated tasks - ideology and partisan classification tasks, supplemented by human validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T02:52:34Z)
• 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)
• Categorical Syllogisms Revisited: A Review of the Logical Reasoning Abilities of LLMs for Analyzing Categorical Syllogism [62.571419297164645]
  This paper provides a systematic overview of prior works on the logical reasoning ability of large language models for analyzing categorical syllogisms.<n>We first investigate all the possible variations for the categorical syllogisms from a purely logical perspective.<n>We then examine the underlying configurations (i.e., mood and figure) tested by the existing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T21:17:20Z)
• Measurement in the Age of LLMs: An Application to Ideological Scaling [1.9413548770753526]
  This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) to navigate the conceptual clutter inherent to social scientific measurement tasks. We rely on LLMs' remarkable linguistic fluency to elicit ideological scales of both legislators and text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T18:34:06Z)
• 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.