Ideological Bias in LLMs' Economic Causal Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21334v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 06:45:36 GMT
• Title: Ideological Bias in LLMs' Economic Causal Reasoning
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in policy analysis and economic reporting.<n>We extend the EconCausal benchmark with ideology-contested cases.<n>We find that ideology-contested items are consistently harder than non-contested ones.
• Score: 10.974846337139278
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic ideological bias when reasoning about economic causal effects? As LLMs are increasingly used in policy analysis and economic reporting, where directionally correct causal judgments are essential, this question has direct practical stakes. We present a systematic evaluation by extending the EconCausal benchmark with ideology-contested cases - instances where intervention-oriented (pro-government) and market-oriented (pro-market) perspectives predict divergent causal signs. From 10,490 causal triplets (treatment-outcome pairs with empirically verified effect directions) derived from top-tier economics and finance journals, we identify 1,056 ideology-contested instances and evaluate 20 state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to predict empirically supported causal directions. We find that ideology-contested items are consistently harder than non-contested ones, and that across 18 of 20 models, accuracy is systematically higher when the empirically verified causal sign aligns with intervention-oriented expectations than with market-oriented ones. Moreover, when models err, their incorrect predictions disproportionately lean intervention-oriented, and this directional skew is not eliminated by one-shot in-context prompting. These results highlight that LLMs are not only less accurate on ideologically contested economic questions, but systematically less reliable in one ideological direction than the other, underscoring the need for direction-aware evaluation in high-stakes economic and policy settings.

Related papers

• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• Thinking Fast, Thinking Wrong: Intuitiveness Modulates LLM Counterfactual Reasoning in Policy Evaluation [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for causal and counterfactual reasoning, yet their reliability in real-world policy evaluation remains underexplored.<n>We construct a benchmark of 40 empirical policy evaluation cases drawn from economics and social science.<n>We analyze the results using mixed-effects logistic regression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T08:00:38Z)
• 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)
• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [62.388554963415906]
  In finance, Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts arising from discrepancies between their pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>These conflicts are especially problematic in real-world investment services, where a model's inherent biases can misalign with institutional objectives.<n>We propose an experimental framework to investigate emergent behaviors in such conflict scenarios, offering a quantitative analysis of bias in investment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• Harnessing the Reasoning Economy: A Survey of Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models [51.85792055455284]
  Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their ability to perform complex reasoning tasks.<n>System 1 reasoning is computationally efficient but leads to suboptimal performance.<n>System 2 reasoning often incurs substantial computational costs due to its slow thinking nature and inefficient or unnecessary reasoning behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T17:58:07Z)
• Are LLMs (Really) Ideological? An IRT-based Analysis and Alignment Tool for Perceived Socio-Economic Bias in LLMs [0.0]
  We introduce an Item Response Theory (IRT)-based framework to detect and quantify socioeconomic bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>IRT accounts for item difficulty, improving ideological bias estimation.<n>This empirically validated framework enhances AI alignment research and promotes fairer AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T13:20:09Z)
• Gender Bias of LLM in Economics: An Existentialism Perspective [1.024113475677323]
  This paper investigates gender bias in large language models (LLMs) LLMs reinforce gender stereotypes even without explicit gender markers. We argue that bias in LLMs is not an unintended flaw but a systematic result of their rational processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T01:42:01Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning [25.732397636695882]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans. Our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T12:58:14Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)

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.