arXiv:2608.29198v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly encourage users to disclose personal profiles for tailored assistance, measuring their political alignment...
arXiv:2603. 23841v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity.
arXiv:2609.38256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about politically contentious issues, yet evaluations typically treat a model's...
arXiv:2610.16498v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative Social Simulation (GSS) leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to create sophisticated personas that define agents with demographics, emot...
arXiv:2508.16013v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in politically sensitive contexts, raising concerns about their susceptibility to ideologica...
arXiv:2609.23039v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based AI systems answer political questions for hundreds of millions of people. Current audits measure what they say to an average user, but their...
arXiv:2606. 28335v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We argue, with systematic empirical evidence, that a large language model's political ideology is not a fixed point, but a conditional distribution $\mathbb{P}($position$\mid$context$)$ over a real political space.
As users increasingly turn to Large Language Models (LLMs) for information and advice on political matters, particularly during election periods, the political preferences expressed by these systems have become a matter of public interest. Prior research has shown that interactions with LLMs can influence users' political attitudes and choices, raising questions about how these models themselves evaluate political actors.
The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) that generate political networks by comparing them to survey-reported partisan exposure from the ANES 2020–2022 Social Media Study. It finds that while network structure and political assortativity vary across model configurations, many models either over‑separate Democratic and Republican egos or underestimate Republican exposure, leading to group‑specific errors in local partisan environments. These discrepancies persist even among networks with similar aggregate properties, indicating that aggregate metrics alone can mask important individual‑level inaccuracies.
The study examines how large language models (LLMs) respond to users in online political debates, finding that LLMs are more receptive to left‑leaning users than right‑leaning ones. This bias persists even when users defend the same position or appear together, and is influenced by user expertise and, to a lesser extent, rhetorical strategy. Fine‑tuning on different political corpora can reduce or reverse the effect, indicating that the bias is not inherent to the models but can be altered.
The paper investigates how to detect enthymemes—arguments with unstated premises or conclusions—in controversial political tweets about vaccination and immigration. Despite extensive fine‑tuning, models achieve an F1 score of only about 0.67, prompting the authors to propose new evaluation metrics that compare predictions to the full distribution of annotator votes and a model that directly predicts this distribution. The study also shows that models rely on explicit argumentative structure, often missing implicit links that readers must infer, raising concerns for content moderation systems that depend on majority labels.
arXiv:2607. 27232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview.