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:2608.29803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs...
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
arXiv:2607. 23519v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Political audits of large language models (LLMs) usually reduce each to one point on a political compass.
arXiv:2607. 01951v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consulted on contested scientific questions, raising the concern that they will sycophantically retreat from established consensus when a user signals doubt -- drifting toward a false balance that treats settled science as one view among several.
The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) agents can simulate public deliberation by reflecting population opinion patterns and producing interaction-driven opinion change. Using census‑grounded Korean personas debating real policy questions, the study finds that persona agents fail to reliably reproduce population opinion patterns, often concentrating responses and reversing demographic differences. While deliberations generate reasoned, reciprocal arguments and some stance movement, much of this change occurs without peer exchange, and anchoring agents to population‑informed starting positions suppresses updating, indicating that population representation, argument generation, and interaction‑driven opinion change do not necessarily align.
The study investigates how demographic identity is represented in a language model, using representational similarity analysis against Pew survey data across 169 demographic cells. It finds that standard last‑token read‑outs underestimate the model’s fidelity, while specific attention heads (notably L11 H16) capture demographic structure more accurately, though race‑based types remain weak. Causal interventions reveal that high fidelity does not guarantee causal use, and a 128‑dimensional probe of a single head improves alignment with survey truth but fails to recover per‑question group ordering.
arXiv:2608.18768v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are widely used to simulate survey respondents, yet their outputs are homogeneous and unfaithful to real inter-group differen...
Political audits of large language models (LLMs) usually reduce each to one point on a political compass. But that resting point barely matters in deployment: a model must land somewhere, and what counts is how far, and in which directions, its answers can be steered.
arXiv:2606. 30850v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are typically deployed in multi-turn conversations, where each turn provides new evidence that should reduce epistemic uncertainty about their environment.
arXiv:2606. 08076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored.
The paper introduces an adaptive triggering mechanism for bias correction in large language model (LLM) reasoning. By framing bias intervention as an online change‑point detection problem, the authors update a CUSUM statistic at each step using either a white‑box next‑token probability signal or a black‑box LLM judge signal, and inject corrective prompts only when the accumulated evidence exceeds a calibrated threshold. Experiments on gpt‑4o‑mini and six open‑weight models show that adaptive black‑box triggering restores most of the accuracy lost by fixed‑interval interventions while reducing the number of corrections, whereas the white‑box signal improves ambiguous‑item accuracy but can hurt disambiguated‑item accuracy due to difficulty distinguishing stereotype reliance from correct evidence.