AI systems often exhibit political bias, influencing users' opinions and decision-making. While political neutrality-defined as the absence of bias-is often seen as an ideal solution for fairness and safety, this position paper argues that true political neutrality is neither feasible nor universally desirable due to its subjective nature and the biases inherent in AI training data, algorithms, and user interactions. However, inspired by Joseph Raz's philosophical insight that "neutrality [...] can be a matter of degree" (Raz, 1986), we argue that striving for some neutrality remains essential for promoting balanced AI interactions and mitigating user manipulation. Therefore, we use the term "approximation" of political neutrality to shift the focus from unattainable absolutes to achievable, practical proxies. We propose eight techniques for approximating neutrality across three levels of conceptualizing AI, examining their trade-offs and implementation strategies. In addition, we explore two concrete applications of these approximations to illustrate their practicality. Finally, we assess our framework on current large language models (LLMs) at the output level, providing a demonstration of how it can be evaluated. This work seeks to advance nuanced discussions of political neutrality in AI and promote the development of responsible, aligned language models.

When different groups' values differ, one approach to model alignment is to steer models at inference time towards each group's preferences. However, techniques like in-context learning only consider similarity when drawing few-shot examples and not cross-group differences in values. We propose SPICA, a framework that accounts for group-level differences during in-context example retrieval. SPICA introduces three designs: scenario banks, group-informed retrieval metrics, and in-context alignment prompts. From an evaluation of SPICA on an alignment task collecting inputs from four demographic groups ($n = 544$), our metrics retrieve in-context examples that more closely match observed preferences, with the best prompt configuration using multiple contrastive responses to demonstrate examples. In an end-to-end evaluation ($n = 120$), we observe that SPICA is higher rated than similarity-based retrieval, with groups seeing up to a +0.16 point improvement on a 5 point scale. Additionally, gains from SPICA were more uniform, with all groups benefiting from alignment rather than only some. Finally, we find that while a group-agnostic approach can align to aggregated values, it is not most suited for divergent groups.

Conventional algorithms for training language models (LMs) with human feedback rely on preferences that are assumed to account for an "average" user, disregarding subjectivity and finer-grained variations. Recent studies have raised concerns that aggregating such diverse and often contradictory human feedback to finetune models results in generic models that generate outputs not preferred by many user groups, as they tend to average out styles and norms. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from recommendation systems and propose ComPO, a method to personalize preference optimization in LMs by contextualizing the probability distribution of model outputs with the preference provider. Focusing on group-level preferences rather than individuals, we collect and release ComPRed, a question answering dataset with community-level preferences from Reddit. This dataset facilitates studying diversity in preferences without incurring privacy concerns associated with individual feedback. Our experiments reveal that conditioning language models on a community identifier (i.e., subreddit name) during preference tuning substantially enhances model performance. Conversely, replacing this context with random subreddit identifiers significantly diminishes performance, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach in tailoring responses to communities' preferences.

To explain social phenomena and identify systematic biases, much research in computational social science focuses on comparative text analyses. These studies often rely on coarse corpus-level statistics or local word-level analyses, mainly in English. We introduce the InfoGap method -- an efficient and reliable approach to locating information gaps and inconsistencies in articles at the fact level, across languages. We evaluate InfoGap by analyzing LGBT people's portrayals, across 2.7K biography pages on English, Russian, and French Wikipedias. We find large discrepancies in factual coverage across the languages. Moreover, our analysis reveals that biographical facts carrying negative connotations are more likely to be highlighted in Russian Wikipedia. Crucially, InfoGap both facilitates large scale analyses, and pinpoints local document- and fact-level information gaps, laying a new foundation for targeted and nuanced comparative language analysis at scale.

To make large language models (LLMs) more helpful across diverse cultures, it is essential to have effective cultural knowledge benchmarks to measure and track our progress. Effective benchmarks need to be robust, diverse, and challenging. We introduce CulturalBench: a set of 1,227 human-written and human-verified questions for effectively assessing LLMs' cultural knowledge, covering 45 global regions including the underrepresented ones like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and Peru. Questions - each verified by five independent annotators - span 17 diverse topics ranging from food preferences to greeting etiquettes. We evaluate models on two setups: CulturalBench-Easy and CulturalBench-Hard which share the same questions but asked differently. We find that LLMs are sensitive to such difference in setups (e.g., GPT-4o with 27.3% difference). Compared to human performance (92.6% accuracy), CulturalBench-Hard is more challenging for frontier LLMs with the best performing model (GPT-4o) at only 61.5% and the worst (Llama3-8b) at 21.4%. Moreover, we find that LLMs often struggle with tricky questions that have multiple correct answers (e.g., What utensils do the Chinese usually use?), revealing a tendency to converge to a single answer. Our results also indicate that OpenAI GPT-4o substantially outperform other proprietary and open source models in questions related to all but one region (Oceania). Nonetheless, all models consistently underperform on questions related to South America and the Middle East.

This study introduces ValueScope, a framework leveraging language models to quantify social norms and values within online communities, grounded in social science perspectives on normative structures. We employ ValueScope to dissect and analyze linguistic and stylistic expressions across 13 Reddit communities categorized under gender, politics, science, and finance. Our analysis provides a quantitative foundation showing that even closely related communities exhibit remarkably diverse norms. This diversity supports existing theories and adds a new dimension--community preference--to understanding community interactions. ValueScope not only delineates differing social norms among communities but also effectively traces their evolution and the influence of significant external events like the U.S. presidential elections and the emergence of new sub-communities. The framework thus highlights the pivotal role of social norms in shaping online interactions, presenting a substantial advance in both the theory and application of social norm studies in digital spaces.

Frontier large language models (LLMs) are developed by researchers and practitioners with skewed cultural backgrounds and on datasets with skewed sources. However, LLMs' (lack of) multicultural knowledge cannot be effectively assessed with current methods for developing benchmarks. Existing multicultural evaluations primarily rely on expensive and restricted human annotations or potentially outdated internet resources. Thus, they struggle to capture the intricacy, dynamics, and diversity of cultural norms. LLM-generated benchmarks are promising, yet risk propagating the same biases they are meant to measure. To synergize the creativity and expert cultural knowledge of human annotators and the scalability and standardizability of LLM-based automation, we introduce CulturalTeaming, an interactive red-teaming system that leverages human-AI collaboration to build truly challenging evaluation dataset for assessing the multicultural knowledge of LLMs, while improving annotators' capabilities and experiences. Our study reveals that CulturalTeaming's various modes of AI assistance support annotators in creating cultural questions, that modern LLMs fail at, in a gamified manner. Importantly, the increased level of AI assistance (e.g., LLM-generated revision hints) empowers users to create more difficult questions with enhanced perceived creativity of themselves, shedding light on the promises of involving heavier AI assistance in modern evaluation dataset creation procedures. Through a series of 1-hour workshop sessions, we gather CULTURALBENCH-V0.1, a compact yet high-quality evaluation dataset with users' red-teaming attempts, that different families of modern LLMs perform with accuracy ranging from 37.7% to 72.2%, revealing a notable gap in LLMs' multicultural proficiency.

In this work, we take a first step towards designing summarization systems that are faithful to the author's opinions and perspectives. Focusing on a case study of preserving political perspectives in news summarization, we find that existing approaches alter the political opinions and stances of news articles in more than 50% of summaries, misrepresenting the intent and perspectives of the news authors. We thus propose P^3Sum, a diffusion model-based summarization approach controlled by political perspective classifiers. In P^3Sum, the political leaning of a generated summary is iteratively evaluated at each decoding step, and any drift from the article's original stance incurs a loss back-propagated to the embedding layers, steering the political stance of the summary at inference time. Extensive experiments on three news summarization datasets demonstrate that P^3Sum outperforms state-of-the-art summarization systems and large language models by up to 11.4% in terms of the success rate of stance preservation, with on-par performance on standard summarization utility metrics. These findings highlight the lacunae that even for state-of-the-art models it is still challenging to preserve author perspectives in news summarization, while P^3Sum presents an important first step towards evaluating and developing summarization systems that are faithful to author intent and perspectives.

Language model (LM) prompting--a popular paradigm for solving NLP tasks-- has been shown to be susceptible to miscalibration and brittleness to slight prompt variations, caused by its discriminative prompting approach, i.e., predicting the label given the input. The framework is multivariate, as label descriptions allow us to seamlessly integrate additional contextual information about the labels to improve task performance. On various standard classification benchmarks, with six open-source LM families, we show that zero-shot classification with simple contextualization of the data source of the evaluation set consistently outperforms both zero-shot and few-shot baselines while improving robustness to prompt variations. Further, our approach enables personalizing classification in a zero-shot manner by incorporating author, subject, or reader information in the label descriptions. Language models, trained only on raw text, have been shown to perform new tasks simply by conditioning on a handful of demonstrations (Brown et al., 2020). Furthermore, ICL has been shown to be very sensitive to the choice of training examples, their order and format in the prompt (Lu et al., 2022; Sorensen et al., 2022) requiring major human effort to achieve optimal performance. In this work, we ask, "If the right demonstrations are challenging to find and only serve to implicitly prime the model, can we achieve the same performance zero-shot if we prime the language model explicitly in a robust way?" Our approach consists of two key ideas. First, most text classification methods follow a discriminative setup, which involves estimating the probability of the labels given the input, which can be sensitive to prompt or verbalizer variations. Instead, we use a generative setup, which involves estimating the probability of generating the input given different labels, which has been shown to have better worst-case performance (Min et al., 2022a).

Empowering language is important in many real-world contexts, from education to workplace dynamics to healthcare. Though language technologies are growing more prevalent in these contexts, empowerment has seldom been studied in NLP, and moreover, it is inherently challenging to operationalize because of its implicit nature. This work builds from linguistic and social psychology literature to explore what characterizes empowering language. We then crowdsource a novel dataset of Reddit posts labeled for empowerment, reasons why these posts are empowering to readers, and the social relationships between posters and readers. Our preliminary analyses show that this dataset, which we call TalkUp, can be used to train language models that capture empowering and disempowering language. More broadly, TalkUp provides an avenue to explore implication, presuppositions, and how social context influences the meaning of language.