The study investigates how a single politically charged framing term can influence large language models (LLMs) during translation tasks. By prompting eight models from Western, Chinese, and European origins to translate culturally attributed recipes across 17 languages under four framing conditions, the authors find that models resolve ambiguity rather than decline, with distinct behavior patterns tied to model families. Sensitivity to framing terms is consistent, showing that even subtle variations can modulate LLM behavior, raising concerns about implicit political judgments in translation contexts.
arXiv:2608. 06123v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric.
arXiv:2607. 27232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview.
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: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: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: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: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.
The paper introduces a taxonomy of six types of contextual knowledge conflicts—factual, inferential, temporal, granularity, perspective, and ambiguity—and presents the ContextConflict dataset with 5,781 samples covering reasoning and summarization tasks. Experiments on nine large language models reveal that current models struggle to resolve these conflicts, exhibit a bias toward earlier evidence, and show latent awareness of conflicts in their internal representations. The authors propose a training‑free, label‑free steering method that adjusts activations to better incorporate evidence, consistently improving reasoning accuracy and producing higher‑quality, balanced summaries on the dataset.
The paper investigates how well large language models (LLMs) can handle character attacks—ad hominem arguments—in political debates. By analyzing natural political dialogues and comparing LLM-generated responses to a corpus of U.S. presidential debates, the study finds that most LLMs favor logical defenses and rarely use ethos-based counterattacks. The authors suggest that safety fine‑tuning limits LLMs’ strategic options, preventing them from fully engaging in realistic political discourse.
The paper examines how large language models resolve conflicts that arise within contextual knowledge, rather than between internal knowledge and external context. It introduces a taxonomy of six contextual conflict types and presents the ContextConflict dataset with 5,781 samples covering reasoning and summarization tasks. Experiments on nine LLMs reveal persistent shortcomings in conflict resolution, uncover a bias toward earlier evidence, and propose a training‑free steering method that improves accuracy and summary quality.
arXiv:2608. 11816v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: State-aligned distortion has been documented in China-origin text-based large language models (LLMs), but whether, and in what form, it arises in multimodal systems has not been systematically examined.
PolERo presents a new dataset of 3,574 Romanian question‑answer pairs from presidential transcripts, annotated for political evasion using a two‑level taxonomy of response clarity and fine‑grained evasion strategies. The study evaluates various classification methods—including TF‑IDF baselines, fine‑tuned encoders, a sliding‑window encoder, and zero/few‑shot LLM prompting—under matched conditions. Cross‑lingual transfer experiments via joint bilingual training and machine‑translation augmentation reveal that fine‑tuned encoders perform competitively, transfer is asymmetric, and ambivalent evasion categories with pragmatic cues remain the most challenging across all models.