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).
arXiv:2606. 15307v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hateful and propagandistic memes exploit the interplay between images and text to convey harmful intent that neither modality reveals alone.
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:2512. 05518v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) play a critical role in the democratization of AI, yet their "open" nature introduces more avenues for malicious actors to misuse them for harmful purposes.
The paper investigates how alignment training, specifically reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), affects the internal partisan structure of a large language model. Using a mechanistic case study on Llama 3.1 8B, the authors find that alignment training does not erase the model’s partisan geometry but compresses its variance, producing consistently balanced, non‑partisan outputs. Sparse autoencoder analysis and feature‑level steering experiments reveal that policy‑encoding features become inactive in the aligned model, indicating a causal disconnect rather than structural removal of partisan knowledge.
arXiv:2606. 04928v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse applications, raising critical questions for governance, accountability, and data provenance.
arXiv:2606. 25476v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across natural language processing tasks, yet their deployment in high-stakes applications raises critical concerns regarding reliability, safety, and trustworthiness.
arXiv:2501. 14844v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Detecting biases in the outputs produced by generative models is essential to reduce the potential risks associated with their application in critical settings.
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...
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.
arXiv:2609.22221v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent and coherent text that is increasingly difficult to distinguish from human writing, motivating the dev...
BiasGym is a cost‑effective, generalizable framework that injects specific biases into large language models via token‑based fine‑tuning while keeping the model frozen. It then uses two debiasing methods—Scope and Steer—to identify and suppress or redirect the components responsible for biased behavior. The framework enables consistent bias elicitation, precise localization of bias associations, and targeted debiasing without harming downstream performance, and it has been shown to reduce real‑world stereotypes such as labeling Italians as reckless drivers.
The paper introduces a bias depth score to differentiate between stable model preferences (Deep biases) and prompt‑dependent responses (Shallow biases) in large language models. By analyzing 4,442 opinion prompts across four models, it finds that only about a quarter of concentrated preferences persist after scenario reframing, indicating that most are shallow. The study shows Deep biases are more often inherited from pretraining and harder to remove through fine‑tuning or prompt‑based debiasing, highlighting the need to distinguish learned biases from prompt artifacts.