Whose Story Gets Told? Positionality and Bias in LLM Summaries of Life Narratives

Although large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as annotators at scale, they are typically treated as a pragmatic fallback rather than a faithful estimator of human perspectives. This work challenges that presumption. By framing perspective-taking as the estimation of a latent group-level judgment, we characterize the conditions under which modern LLMs can outperform human annotators, including in-group humans, when predicting aggregate subgroup opinions on subjective tasks, and show that these conditions are common in practice. This advantage arises from structural properties of LLMs as estimators, including low variance and reduced coupling between representation and processing biases, rather than any claim of lived experience. Our analysis identifies clear regimes where LLMs act as statistically superior frontline estimators, as well as principled limits where human judgment remains essential. These findings reposition LLMs from a cost-saving compromise to a principled tool for estimating collective human perspectives.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for summarization and dialogue evaluation. Prior work has documented biases such as position, verbosity, and style preferences, but largely focuses on outcomes, leaving judge explanations underexplored. We instead ask whether LLM judges are cue-invariant, i.e., whether their rankings and explanations remain stable when non-evidential cues are perturbed while holding the underlying texts fixed. We introduce a suite of cue interventions (Blind, Truth, Flip, Placebo, Reveal-After) and tie-aware metrics that quantify outcome anchoring and rationale anchoring, including label-aligned rhetoric and explanation drift, alongside consistency and stereotype-intrusion checks. We design anchoring attacks using verbosity and confidence cues, and compare two mitigations: structured chain-of-thought prompting and PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE (evidence lock, score, rank). Using a new dataset of 1,000 summaries from traditional extractive models and LLMs, we find substantial cue-anchored rationalization under label and placebo perturbations, while PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE markedly improves cue invariance over baselines.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in persona-driven applications such as education, customer service, and social platforms, where models are prompted to adopt specific personas when interacting with users. While persona conditioning can improve user experience and engagement, it also raises concerns about how personality cues may interact with gender biases and stereotypes. In this work, we present a controlled study of persona-conditioned story generation in English and Hindi, where each story portrays a working professional in India producing context-specific artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, reports, letters) under systematically varied persona gender, occupational role, and personality traits from the HEXACO and Dark Triad frameworks. Across 23,400 generated stories from six state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that personality traits are significantly associated with both the magnitude and direction of gender bias. In particular, Dark Triad personality traits are consistently associated with higher gender-stereotypical representations compared to socially desirable HEXACO traits, though these associations vary across models and languages. Our findings demonstrate that gender bias in LLMs is not static but context-dependent. This suggests that persona-conditioned systems used in real-world applications may introduce uneven representational harms, reinforcing gender stereotypes in generated educational, professional, or social content.