Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.11409 v1 pith:XI3GFA6K submitted 2024-07-16 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords languagepoliticalpublicbiasbiaseschoiceelectionlarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models, specifically focusing on vote choice and public opinion. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao Dataset, and China Family Panel Studies to simulate voting behaviors and public opinions. This methodology enables us to examine three types of representation bias: disparities based on the the country's language, demographic groups, and political regime types. The findings reveal that simulation performance is generally better for vote choice than for public opinions, more accurate in English-speaking countries, more effective in bipartisan systems than in multi-partisan systems, and stronger in democratic settings than in authoritarian regimes. These results contribute to enhancing our understanding and developing strategies to mitigate biases in AI applications within the field of computational social science.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Characterizing Bias: Benchmarking Large Language Models in Simplified versus Traditional Chinese

    cs.CL 2025-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark shows LLMs are more accurate in Simplified Chinese for regional terms but favor Taiwanese names in simulated hiring, revealing task-dependent bias between Chinese script variants.

  2. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of LLM-based Public Opinion Simulation: Evaluating Chinese and U.S. Models on Diverse Societies

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Across U.S. and Chinese survey questions, DeepSeek, GPT-4o, Qwen2.5, and Llama-3.3 all show demographic overgeneralization, with no consistent home-field advantage for the Chinese model.

Pith tools