SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Aaron R. Kaufman

Publications and source records attributed to Aaron R. Kaufman.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

The Political Ideology of Large Language Models: Measurement, Inconsistency, and Persuasive Influence

Large Language Models (LLMs) are a transformational technology, fundamentally changing how people obtain information and interact with the world. As people become increasingly reliant on them for an enormous variety of tasks, a body of academic research has developed to examine these models for inherent biases, especially political biases, often finding them small. We challenge this prevailing wisdom. First, by comparing 43 LLMs to legislators, judges, and a nationally representative sample of U.S. voters, we show that LLMs' apparently moderate overall partisan positioning is the net result of offsetting strongly partisan expressed positions on specific topics, much like moderate voters. Second, in a pre-registered randomized experiment, we show that LLMs can exert persuasive influence on political attitudes. Voters randomized to discuss a policy issue with an LLM shift toward that model's measured ideological position by 3.5 percentage points on average, an effect at least as large as those produced by professional campaign advertising. Explicitly prompting a model to argue one side of the issue shifts attitudes by more than 10 percentage points relative to unsteered conversations, and this steering accounts for the pooled effect. When the same models converse naturally, without steering, we detect no persuasive effect, and our confidence interval rules out effects as small as the pre-registered smallest effect of interest. Contrary to expectations, these persuasive effects are not moderated by familiarity with LLMs, news consumption, or interest in politics. LLMs, especially those controlled by private companies or governments, may become a powerful and targeted vector for political influence.

cs.CY

Causal evidence of racial and institutional biases in accessing paywalled articles and scientific data

Scientific progress depends on researchers' ability to access and build upon the work of others. Yet, much published work remains behind expensive paywalls, and even accessible articles often rest on datasets shared only "upon reasonable request" to the authors. Researchers can try to overcome these barriers through informal channels, such as emailing authors directly, but whether such channels are hindered by racial or institutional biases remains unknown. Here we combine survey data, semi-structured interviews, large-scale observational analysis, and two randomized audit experiments to examine disparities in access to scientific knowledge. Surveyed researchers in the Global South report markedly lower institutional access to the literature and depend more heavily on informal channels to obtain papers and data; interviews elaborate the workarounds and racialized frictions they encounter. Our analysis of 250 million articles reveals that Global South researchers cite paywalled papers at significantly lower rates than Global North counterparts--a gap associated with reduced knowledge breadth and scholarly impact. Using citation-context classification, we further find that papers whose data is available only upon request are less likely to be cited for reusing their data, a penalty falling disproportionately on the Global South. To probe mechanisms, we conduct two email audit studies in which fictional PhD students differing in racial background and institutional affiliation request paywalled articles (N = 18,000) and datasets (N = 16,000). Racial identity influences response rates to both requests, whereas institutional affiliation influences access to datasets. These findings reveal how informal gatekeeping can perpetuate structural inequities in science, highlighting the need for stronger data-sharing mandates and more equitable open-access policies.

cs.DL

TikTok's recommendations skewed towards Republican content during the 2024 U.S. presidential race

TikTok is a major force among social media platforms with over a billion monthly active users worldwide and 170 million in the United States. The platform's status as a key news source, particularly among younger demographics, raises concerns about its potential influence on politics in the U.S. and globally. Despite these concerns, there is scant research investigating TikTok's recommendation algorithm for political biases. We fill this gap by conducting 323 independent algorithmic audit experiments testing partisan content recommendations in the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential elections. Specifically, we create hundreds of "sock puppet" TikTok accounts in Texas, New York, and Georgia, seeding them with varying partisan content and collecting algorithmic content recommendations for each of them. Collectively, these accounts viewed ~394,000 videos from April 30th to November 11th, 2024, which we label for political and partisan content. Our analysis reveals significant asymmetries in content distribution: Republican-seeded accounts received ~11.8% more party-aligned recommendations compared to their Democratic-seeded counterparts, and Democratic-seeded accounts were exposed to ~7.5% more opposite-party recommendations on average. These asymmetries exist across all three states and persist when accounting for video- and channel-level engagement metrics such as likes, views, shares, comments, and followers, and are driven primarily by negative partisanship content. Our findings provide insights into the inner workings of TikTok's recommendation algorithm during a critical election period, raising fundamental questions about platform neutrality.

cs.SI

Leveraging text data for causal inference using electronic health records

In studies that rely on data from electronic health records (EHRs), unstructured text data such as clinical progress notes offer a rich source of information about patient characteristics and care that may be missing from structured data. Despite the prevalence of text in clinical research, these data are often ignored for the purposes of quantitative analysis due their complexity. This paper presents a unified framework for leveraging text data to support causal inference with electronic health data at multiple stages of analysis. In particular, we consider how natural language processing and statistical text analysis can be combined with standard inferential techniques to address common challenges due to missing data, confounding bias, and treatment effect heterogeneity. Through an application to a recent EHR study investigating the effects of a non-randomized medical intervention on patient outcomes, we show how incorporating text data in a traditional matching analysis can help strengthen the validity of an estimated treatment effect and identify patient subgroups that may benefit most from treatment. We believe these methods have the potential to expand the scope of secondary analysis of clinical data to domains where structured EHR data is limited, such as in developing countries. To this end, we provide code and open-source replication materials to encourage adoption and broader exploration of these techniques in clinical research.

cs.CL

Diarization of Legal Proceedings. Identifying and Transcribing Judicial Speech from Recorded Court Audio

United States Courts make audio recordings of oral arguments available as public record, but these recordings rarely include speaker annotations. This paper addresses the Speech Audio Diarization problem, answering the question of "Who spoke when?" in the domain of judicial oral argument proceedings. We present a workflow for diarizing the speech of judges using audio recordings of oral arguments, a process we call Reference-Dependent Speaker Verification. We utilize a speech embedding network trained with the Generalized End-to-End Loss to encode speech into d-vectors and a pre-defined reference audio library based on annotated data. We find that by encoding reference audio for speakers and full arguments and computing similarity scores we achieve a 13.8% Diarization Error Rate for speakers covered by the reference audio library on a held-out test set. We evaluate our method on the Supreme Court of the United States oral arguments, accessed through the Oyez Project, and outline future work for diarizing legal proceedings. A code repository for this research is available at github.com/JeffT13/rd-diarization

cs.SD