Skip to content

Are LLMs ready for HardChoices?

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.11471 · 0 citations · 14 references
Computer Science

Abstract

A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.

View source

Similar papers

Jul 2026

A dataset of rated conceptual arguments

Large language models have improved rapidly on tasks with verifiable answers, such as mathematics and programming. Much less is known about their ability to reason about what we call conceptual questions: questions for which no ground truth is realistically accessible and no widely accepted resolution methodology exist...

Emery Cooper, Caspar Oesterheld, Linh Nguyen et al. · 0 citations
Review Jul 2026

Analyzing and Correcting Benevolence Bias in Large Language Models

Benevolence bias is identified and measure, a small but consistent tendency for aligned LLMs to lean toward the kinder, safer, more socially approved answer on value-laden survey questions, and is easy to diagnose and straightforward to fix.

Yuanzi Li, Jun-Hao Wang, Minghui Liu et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

All too perfect: bias and aspiration in persona generation with LLMs

It is proposed that persona-based evaluation can serve as a scalable diagnostic of what generative systems value and prioritize when depicting humanity, and that persona generations are far from neutral.

N. Corrêa, Rafaela Weber Mallmann, David Kaczér et al. · 0 citations
Conference Jul 2026

StarDTox : Is Fairness in Language Models Just a Few Prompts Away?

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce outputs that reflect social biases, toxicity, or unfair treatment of demographic groups, undermining trust and fairness. While prior mitigation strategies frequently rely on complex architectures, access to model internals, or costly fine-tuning, we argue that simplicity can b...

Shirin Tahmasebi, Narjes Nikzad, A. H. Payberah et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Towards Trustworthy Large Language Models

An integrated conceptual frame-work that couples attention- and perturbation-based explainability with lightweight hallucination-detection signals and token-efficient inference strategies is presented, and a set of cross-cutting consistency metrics are instrumented with a set of cross-cutting consistency metrics.

Sakshi Parate, Shreyans Sanyal · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

A Heuristic Perspective on Debiasing Language Models

HEIMAT, a HEurIstic-style autoMATic debiasing framework for LMs, effectively mitigates bias in different cultures while maintaining the model's natural language understanding (NLU) performance.

Tian Lan, Yemin Wang, Chuan-Cheng Shi et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.