REGARD: Regional Affective Differences in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20722v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:47:57 GMT
• Title: REGARD: Regional Affective Differences in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We study what drives affective framing differences across LLMs on post-Soviet entities using target-directed Valence-Arousal-Dominance profiling.<n>Post-hoc Ward-linkage clustering of all 19 models by affective and response-behavior profiles yields three behavioral clusters.<n>These findings show that VAD profiling captures emotional intensity, a dimension of affective framing that is largely invisible to conventional sentiment-based evaluation.
• Score: 32.505127447635864
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models trained and aligned within different linguistic and regional ecosystems may frame the same political, cultural, and geopolitical entities in different ways. Such differences are often evaluated through sentiment, favorability, or stance, reducing model attitudes to a single positive-negative axis. We introduce REGARD, a study of what drives affective framing differences across LLMs on post-Soviet entities using target-directed Valence-Arousal-Dominance profiling. We query 19 models on 500 region-specific targets, score their responses with two independent LLM judges, GPT-4o-mini and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, and validate the measurements on a 300-item human-annotated subset. Post-hoc Ward-linkage clustering of all 19 models by affective and response-behavior profiles yields three behavioral clusters that cut across model origin, family, and parameter count. Generic-answer rate is strongly associated with lower arousal (r = -0.81) and with cluster placement: models that deflect evaluative prompts with templated responses cluster together at low arousal regardless of origin. These findings show that VAD profiling captures emotional intensity, a dimension of affective framing that is largely invisible to conventional sentiment-based evaluation.

Related papers

• Beyond the Name: Demographic Leakage in De-Identified Résumés and Evaluation Artifacts in LLM Bias Audits [4.736836688901646]
  We investigate whether eliminating language fields resolves leakage across nine open-weight models and 620 résumés.<n>We isolate unstructured prose across five ethnocultural conditions and three cue-salience tiers.<n>Target-group recovery averages 0.757 overall and saturates at 1.000 under high salience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T01:48:44Z)
• Can Persona-Prompted LLMs Emulate Subgroup Values? An Empirical Analysis of Generalisability and Fairness in Cultural Alignment [75.88231994139132]
  We show that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4.1 achieve only 57.4% accuracy in predicting modal preferences.<n>We find significant pre-existing performance biases, where models better emulate young, male, Chinese, and Christian personas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T15:06:13Z)
• Sociodemographic Biases in Educational Counselling by Large Language Models [61.30199414932204]
  This study examines sociodemographic biases in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate responses from six LLMs answering questions about 900 vignettes describing students in diverse circumstances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:08:22Z)
• Sentiment Classification of Gaza War Headlines: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and Arabic Fine-Tuned BERT Models [0.0]
  This study examines how different artificial intelligence architectures interpret sentiment in conflict-related media discourse.<n> Drawing on a corpus of 10,990 Arabic news headlines (Eleraqi 2026), the research conducts a comparative analysis between three large language models and six fine-tuned Arabic BERT models.<n>The results reveal pronounced and non-random divergence in sentiment distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T16:19:51Z)
• Demographic Probing of Large Language Models Lacks Construct Validity [16.29607362682272]
  We study how large language models adapt their behavior to demographic attributes.<n>This approach typically uses a single demographic cue in isolation as a signal for group membership.<n>We find that cues intended to represent the same demographic group induce only partially overlapping changes in model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T13:41:35Z)
• LVLM-Aided Alignment of Task-Specific Vision Models [49.96265491629163]
  Small task-specific vision models are crucial in high-stakes domains.<n>We introduce a novel and efficient method for aligning small task-specific vision models with human domain knowledge.<n>Our method demonstrates substantial improvement in aligning model behavior with human specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-26T11:11:25Z)
• Us-vs-Them bias in Large Language Models [0.569978892646475]
  We find consistent ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations across foundational large language models.<n>For personas examined, conservative personas exhibit greater outgroup hostility, whereas liberal personas display stronger ingroup solidarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T07:11:22Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Human Cognitive Benchmarks Reveal Foundational Visual Gaps in MLLMs [65.93003087656754]
  VisFactor is a benchmark that digitizes 20 vision-centric subtests from a well-established cognitive psychology assessment.<n>We evaluate 20 frontier Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) from GPT, Gemini, Claude, LLaMA, Qwen, and SEED families.<n>The best-performing model achieves a score of only 25.19 out of 100, with consistent failures on tasks such as mental rotation, spatial relation inference, and figure-ground discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T04:21:32Z)
• STOP! Benchmarking Large Language Models with Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions [6.19084217044276]
  Mitigating explicit and implicit biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a critical focus in the field of natural language processing.<n>We introduce the Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions dataset, which includes 450 offensive progressions containing 2,700 unique sentences.<n>Our findings reveal that even the best-performing models detect bias inconsistently, with success rates ranging from 19.3% to 69.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T18:34:38Z)
• Distortions in Judged Spatial Relations in Large Language Models [45.875801135769585]
  GPT-4 exhibited superior performance with 55 percent accuracy, followed by GPT-3.5 at 47 percent, and Llama-2 at 45 percent. The models identified the nearest cardinal direction in most cases, reflecting their associative learning mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T20:08:04Z)
• LOGAN: Local Group Bias Detection by Clustering [86.38331353310114]
  We argue that evaluating bias at the corpus level is not enough for understanding how biases are embedded in a model. We propose LOGAN, a new bias detection technique based on clustering. Experiments on toxicity classification and object classification tasks show that LOGAN identifies bias in a local region.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:42:51Z)

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.