PoliticsBench: Benchmarking Political Values in Large Language Models with Multi-Turn Roleplay

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23841v1
• Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 01:54:56 GMT
• Title: PoliticsBench: Benchmarking Political Values in Large Language Models with Multi-Turn Roleplay
• Abstract summary: This study investigates political bias in eight prominent Large Language Models (LLMs) using PoliticsBench.<n>We test whether commercially developed LLMs display a systematic left-leaning bias that becomes more pronounced in later stages of roleplay.
• Score: 0.5729426778193398
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity. Existing benchmarks of LLM social bias primarily evaluate gender and racial stereotypes. When political bias is included, it is typically measured at a coarse level, neglecting the specific values that shape sociopolitical leanings. This study investigates political bias in eight prominent LLMs (Claude, Deepseek, Gemini, GPT, Grok, Llama, Qwen Base, Qwen Instruction-Tuned) using PoliticsBench: a novel multi-turn roleplay framework adapted from the EQ-Bench-v3 psychometric benchmark. We test whether commercially developed LLMs display a systematic left-leaning bias that becomes more pronounced in later stages of multi-stage roleplay. Through twenty evolving scenarios, each model reported its stance and determined its course of action. Scoring these responses on a scale of ten political values, we explored the values underlying chatbots' deviations from unbiased standards. Seven of our eight models leaned left, while Grok leaned right. Each left-leaning LLM strongly exhibited liberal traits and moderately exhibited conservative ones. We discovered slight variations in alignment scores across stages of roleplay, with no particular pattern. Though most models used consequence-based reasoning, Grok frequently argued with facts and statistics. Our study presents the first psychometric evaluation of political values in LLMs through multi-stage, free-text interactions.

Related papers

• Polar: A Benchmark for Evaluating Political Bias in LLMs [3.546199492648887]
  Polar is a benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation.<n>Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project.<n>All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T05:26:28Z)
• Political Bias Audits of LLMs Capture Sycophancy to the Inferred Auditor [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires.<n>We show that standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T09:23:00Z)
• Multilingual Political Views of Large Language Models: Identification and Steering [11.071018930042909]
  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)
• 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)
• Large Means Left: Political Bias in Large Language Models Increases with Their Number of Parameters [0.571853823214391]
  Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly used by many as a primary source of information for various topics.<n>LLMs frequently make factual errors, fabricate data (hallucinations), or present biases, exposing users to misinformation and influencing opinions.<n>We quantify the political bias of popular LLMs in the context of the recent vote of the German Bundestag using the score produced by the Wahl-O-Mat.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T13:18:41Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• 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)
• 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.