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:2609.15207v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before ele...
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.
arXiv:2607. 05554v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Survey-style evaluations of large language models often treat a prompted response as a measure of a model's values or beliefs.
arXiv:2608. 14629v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become the mainstay for information retrieval and summarization tasks, ensuring that they are always non-partisan and invulnerable to political bias is a critical step towards safer and more trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI).
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 introduces PSL, a dual‑view framework that enhances large language models for predictive political question answering by leveraging semi‑structured political records. PSL extracts stance signals from actor records in a semantic view and learns structure‑aware actor representations from an interaction graph in a vector view. Experiments on three real‑world datasets show that PSL consistently outperforms baseline methods, with ablation studies confirming the complementary benefits of stance and structure signals.
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:2509.22367v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) reflect politically-slanted opinions in their generated text. Even though it is widely assumed that model behavior ste...
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...