Kevin Esterling

Arman Irani, Ju Yeon Park, Kevin Esterling et al.

We propose WIBA, a novel framework and suite of methods that enable the comprehensive understanding of "What Is Being Argued" across contexts. Our approach develops a comprehensive framework that detects: (a) the existence, (b) the topic, and (c) the stance of an argument, correctly accounting for the logical dependence among the three tasks. Our algorithm leverages the fine-tuning and prompt-engineering of Large Language Models. We evaluate our approach and show that it performs well in all the three capabilities. First, we develop and release an Argument Detection model that can classify a piece of text as an argument with an F1 score between 79% and 86% on three different benchmark datasets. Second, we release a language model that can identify the topic being argued in a sentence, be it implicit or explicit, with an average similarity score of 71%, outperforming current naive methods by nearly 40%. Finally, we develop a method for Argument Stance Classification, and evaluate the capability of our approach, showing it achieves a classification F1 score between 71% and 78% across three diverse benchmark datasets. Our evaluation demonstrates that WIBA allows the comprehensive understanding of What Is Being Argued in large corpora across diverse contexts, which is of core interest to many applications in linguistics, communication, and social and computer science. To facilitate accessibility to the advancements outlined in this work, we release WIBA as a free open access platform (wiba.dev).

Shariar Kabir, Kevin Esterling, Yue Dong

Large language models (LLMs) display recognizable political leanings, yet they vary significantly in their ability to represent a political orientation consistently. In this paper, we define ideological depth as (i) a model's ability to follow political instructions without failure (steerability), and (ii) the feature richness of its internal political representations measured with sparse autoencoders (SAEs), an unsupervised sparse dictionary learning (SDL) approach. Using Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Gemma-2-9B-IT as candidates, we compare prompt-based and activation-steering interventions and probe political features with publicly available SAEs. We find large, systematic differences: Gemma is more steerable in both directions and activates approximately 7.3x more distinct political features than Llama. Furthermore, causal ablations of a small targeted set of Gemma's political features to create a similar feature-poor setting induce consistent shifts in its behavior, with increased rates of refusals across topics. Together, these results indicate that refusals on benign political instructions or prompts can arise from capability deficits rather than safety guardrails. Ideological depth thus emerges as a measurable property of LLMs, and steerability serves as a window into their latent political architecture.

Shariar Kabir, Kevin Esterling, Yue Dong

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly shape political discourse, yet exhibit inconsistent responses when challenged. While prior research categorizes LLMs as left- or right-leaning based on single-prompt responses, a critical question remains: Do these classifications reflect stable ideologies or superficial mimicry? Existing methods cannot distinguish between genuine ideological alignment and performative text generation. To address this, we propose a framework for evaluating ideological depth through (1) argumentative consistency and (2) uncertainty quantification. Testing 12 LLMs on 19 economic policies from the Political Compass Test, we classify responses as stable or performative ideological positioning. Results show 95% of left-leaning models and 89% of right-leaning models demonstrate behavior consistent with our classifications across different experimental conditions. Furthermore, semantic entropy strongly validates our classifications (AUROC=0.78), revealing uncertainty's relationship to ideological consistency. Our findings demonstrate that ideological stability is topic-dependent and challenge the notion of monolithic LLM ideologies, and offer a robust way to distinguish genuine alignment from performative behavior.