PReSS: An Automated Black-Box Framework for Evaluating Political Stance Stability in LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing evaluations of political bias in large language models (LLMs) typically classify outputs as left- or right-leaning. We extend this perspective by examining how ideological tendencies vary across topics and how consistently models maintain their positions, a property we refer to as stability. To capture this dimension, we propose PReSS (Political Response Stability under Stress), an automated black-box framework that evaluates LLMs by jointly considering model and topic context, categorizing responses into four stance types: stable-left, unstable-left, stable-right, and unstable-right. Applying PReSS to 9 widely used LLMs across 19 political topics reveals substantial variation in stance stability; for instance, a model that is left-leaning overall can exhibit stable-right behavior on certain topics. This highlights the importance of topic-aware and fine-grained evaluation of political ideologies of LLMs. Moreover, stability has practical implications for controlled generation and model alignment: interventions such as debiasing or ideology reversal should explicitly account for stance stability. Our empirical analyses reveal that when models are prompted or fine-tuned to adopt the opposite ideology, unstable topic stances are more likely to change, whereas stable ones resist modification. Thus, treating stability as a moderating factor provides a principled foundation for understanding, evaluating, and guiding interventions in politically sensitive model behavior.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Apr 2025.
Builds on
14 of 42 references.
References · 14
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
- 2023Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Modelscited by 437
- 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 323
- 2019Benchmarking Zero-shot Text Classification: Datasets, Evaluation and Entailment Approachcited by 308
- 2023From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Modelscited by 260
- 2024Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Modelscited by 162
- 2024Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debatescited by 99
- 2024Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMscited by 55
2 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Political Alignment in Large Language Models: A Multidimensional Audit of Psychometric Identity and Behavioral Bias
- 2026Navigating the digital spectrum: Assessing political bias, stability, and downstream fairness in Large Language Models
- 2025Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes
- 2026LLM-Ideoplasticity: Measuring Ideological Plasticity in the Political Behavior of LLMs as a Context-Conditioned Distribution
- 2024The Political Preferences of LLMs
- 2025Steering Towards Fairness: Mitigating Political Bias in LLMs
- 2025On the Inevitability of Left-Leaning Political Bias in Aligned Language Models
- 2025Are LLMs (Really) Ideological? An IRT-based Analysis and Alignment Tool for Perceived Socio-Economic Bias in LLMs