Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

IssueBench: Millions of Realistic Prompts for Measuring Issue Bias in LLM Writing Assistance

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 2502.08395 v3 pith:MV7OFLNZ submitted 2025-02-12 cs.CL

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

Large language models (LLMs) are helping millions of users write texts about diverse issues, and in doing so expose users to different ideas and perspectives. This creates concerns about issue bias, where an LLM tends to present just one perspective on a given issue, which in turn may influence how users think about this issue. So far, it has not been possible to measure which issue biases LLMs manifest in real user interactions, making it difficult to address the risks from biased LLMs. Therefore, we create IssueBench: a set of 2.49m realistic English-language prompts to measure issue bias in LLM writing assistance, which we construct based on 3.9k templates (e.g. "write a blog about") and 212 political issues (e.g. "AI regulation") from real user interactions. Using IssueBench, we show that issue biases are common and persistent in 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. We also show that biases are very similar across models, and that all models align more with US Democrat than Republican voter opinion on a subset of issues. IssueBench can easily be adapted to include other issues, templates, or tasks. By enabling robust and realistic measurement, we hope that IssueBench can bring a new quality of evidence to ongoing discussions about LLM biases and how to address them.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Measuring and Mitigating Persona Distortions from AI Writing Assistance

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AI writing assistance systematically distorts how writers are perceived across 29 social dimensions, and mitigating undesirable distortions reduces user preference for AI-assisted text.

  2. Large Language Models are Perplexed by some Political Parties

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs exhibit higher perplexity on far-right and nationalist party texts than social-democratic ones, consistent across models and languages with correlation to translation metrics.

  3. Measuring and Mitigating Persona Distortions from AI Writing Assistance

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI writing distorts perceived writer personas across 29 dimensions in large experiments, and reward-model mitigation reduces but does not eliminate user preference for the AI.

  4. What Is The Political Content in LLMs' Pre- and Post-Training Data?

    cs.CL 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Training data for open LLMs is systematically left-leaning, with pre-training corpora containing more political material than post-training data and model stances aligning with data distributions.

Pith tools