Political Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs): A Critical Review and A Responsible Methodology
political bias; large language models; PRISM; machine learning; TF-IDF.
Auditing political bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) has evolved from rigid forced-choice surveys to sophisticated semantic evaluations of open-ended textual responses. Within the PRISM methodology, an LLM judge scores argumentative essays generated on Political Compass Test propositions—a step that is effective but computationally costly when applied at scale. This qualification work investigates whether lightweight supervised classifiers can replicate those judge-assigned silver-standard labels after an initial labeling bootstrap, thereby amortizing inference cost at the PRISM scoring step. Using PRISM-style corpora of LLM-generated political essays (Stage 1: 3,703 essays, 3-class social-axis labels; Stage 2: 22,979 essays, 5-class multilingual labels), we evaluate base classifiers and ensemble methods under several feature-reduction strategies. Reported accuracy measures agreement with the reference LLM judge, not independent human ground truth. A Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) with χ² feature selection reaches 98.41% agreement on Stage 1 and remains competitive under the harder Stage 2 setting (≈ 87% with ensembles). The results support judge distillation as a viable engineering optimization within PRISM-like pipelines: it amortizes scoring cost but replicates the judge's behaviors and the PCT's priors rather than correcting them. The approach does not eliminate the need for LLM-as-a-Judge during initial label creation or generalize to arbitrary open-ended evaluation tasks without labeled data, but demonstrates the potential for lightweight classification as a preliminary step in PRISM-like pipelines and highlights the possibility of reducing the computational cost of political bias auditing.