mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Bias in LLMs as Annotators: The Effect of Party Cues on Labelling Decision by Large Language Models

arXiv 2408.15895 ↗First posted 28 Aug 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Human coders are biased. We test similar biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators. By replicating an experiment run by Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer (2018), we find evidence that LLMs use political information, and specifically party cues, to judge political statements. Not only do LLMs use relevant information to contextualize whether a statement is positive, negative, or neutral based on the party cue, they also reflect the biases of the human-generated data upon which they have been trained. We also find that unlike humans, who are only biased when faced with statements from extreme parties, LLMs exhibit significant bias even when prompted with statements from center-left and center-right parties. The implications of our findings are discussed in the conclusion.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2024.

Builds on

3 of 17 references.

References · 3

  1. 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 639
  2. 2024The Political Preferences of LLMscited by 84
  3. 2022Measuring Annotator Agreement Generally across Complex Structured, Multi-object, and Free-text Annotation Taskscited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.