# Inference-Time Mitigation of Adversarial Political Bias in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14629 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14629/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 23 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)
- LLM safety and security / [Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails](https://mlsanity.com/safety/safety-alignment-refusal-and-guardrails/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00118/) (2024)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [OpenAI GPT-5 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03267/) (2025)
- [Phi-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.08905/) (2024)
- [Certifying LLM Safety against Adversarial Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02705/) (2023)
- [Ministral 3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08584/) (2026)
- [A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14724/) (2023)
- [Bad Actor, Good Advisor: Exploring the Role of Large Language Models in Fake News Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12247/) (2023)
- [Are We in the AI-Generated Text World Already? Quantifying and Monitoring AIGT on Social Media](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18148/) (2024)
- [Scaling Up Video Summarization Pretraining with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03398/) (2024)
- [LLM Applications: Current Paradigms and the Next Frontier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04596/) (2025)
- [Biased AI can Influence Political Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06415/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become the mainstay for information retrieval and summarization tasks, ensuring that they are always non-partisan and invulnerable to political bias is a critical step towards safer and more trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI). Current model alignment paradigms, such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), make LLMs follow overarching safety instructions. However, this instruction tuning can be exploited via adversarial prompt injection and be used to generate unsafe content. In particular, political bias has not been specifically targeted by modern alignment techniques as harmful and biased content. To address this vulnerability of LLMs, we propose mitigation strategies using Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Using a public dataset of legislative videos, we generate summaries using LLMs, inject bias via adversarial prompting and evaluate their performance on a four axis scale designed for political summarization. In this paper, we present different methods to shield LLMs against the injection of political bias. Our results demonstrate that the proposed Recursive Self-Correction approach raises model performance from a Political Neutrality Likert scale baseline of 2.14 to 4.56, averaged across all models, demonstrating effective inference-time mitigation of political bias in LLM-generated summaries.