Revealing Political Bias in LLMs through Structured Multi-Agent Debate
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate social behaviour, yet their political biases and interaction dynamics in debates remain underexplored. We investigate how LLM type and agent gender attributes influence political bias using a structured multi-agent debate framework, by engaging Neutral, Republican, and Democrat American LLM agents in debates on politically sensitive topics. We systematically vary the underlying LLMs, agent genders, and debate formats to examine how model provenance and agent personas influence political bias and attitudes throughout debates. We find that Neutral agents consistently align with Democrats, while Republicans shift closer to the Neutral; gender influences agent attitudes, with agents adapting their opinions when aware of other agents' genders; and contrary to prior research, agents with shared political affiliations can form echo chambers, exhibiting the expected intensification of attitudes as debates progress.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2025.
Builds on
8 of 14 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates6 Feb
- 2023Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents16 Nov
Other references · 6
- 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 205
- 2024Anchoring Bias in Large Language Models: An Experimental Studycited by 37
- 2024Can LLMs Speak For Diverse People? Tuning LLMs via Debate to Generate Controllable Controversial Statementscited by 34
- 2024Decoding Echo Chambers: LLM-Powered Simulations Revealing Polarization in Social Networkscited by 33
- 2022Evaluation Metrics for Measuring Bias in Search Engine Resultscited by 12
- 2023Improved prompting and process for writing user personas with LLMs, using qualitative interviews: Capturing behaviour and personality traits of userscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.
- 2025Can LLM Agents Really Debate? A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent Debate in Logical Reasoningcited by 29
- 2026When Roles Fail: Epistemic Constraints on Advocate Role Fidelity in LLM-Based Political Statement Analysiscited by 2
- 2026Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: An SDLC-Oriented Rapid Reviewcited by 0
- 2026When Roles Fail: Epistemic Constraints on Advocate Role Fidelity in LLM-Based Political Statement Analysis29 Apr 2026
- 2026Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: An SDLC-Oriented Rapid Review10 Apr 2026
- 2025Can LLM Agents Really Debate? A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent Debate in Logical Reasoning11 Nov 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Collective Opinion Dynamics in Structured LLM Populations
- 2025Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: The Case of Political Stereotypes
- 2025DEBATE: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Evaluating Opinion Dynamics in Role-Playing LLM Agents
- 2025Disentangling Interaction and Bias Effects in Opinion Dynamics of Large Language Models
- 2026When Order Matters: First-Speaker Bias and Mitigation through Personality in Sequential Multi-Agent Debate
- 2024The Political Preferences of LLMs
- 2024Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions