Ideological Bias in LLMs' Economic Causal Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in politically sensitive contexts, raising concerns about their susceptibility to ideological biases. In this work, we examine how synthetic persona conditioning shapes ideological expression across seven open-weight instruction-tuned models (7B-72B parameters) using the Political Compass Test (62 statements) as a standardized behavioral probe. Across three studies involving 200,000 synthetic personas and more than 260 million model responses, we analyze implicit and explicit malleability, as well as theme-associated variations. We find that: (i) larger models exhibit broader implicit ideological coverage, increasing from 14-35% for 7-8B models to up to 49% for 70B+ models; (ii) explicit ideological priming induces large and statistically significant shifts, with right-authoritarian cues moving all models in the intended direction and producing larger effects in most model-axis comparisons; (iii) left-libertarian priming produces more heterogeneous responses, including counter-directional economic shifts in three of four 7-8B models, while all 70B+ models move in the intended direction; and (iv) theme-associated semantic content in persona descriptions is linked to systematic and interpretable directional shifts in ideological space. While our results identify an upstream mechanism through which persona conditioning can alter model responses under a standardized ideological probe, we do not test whether such shifts affect users beliefs, decisions, or political behavior. Our findings are best understood as evidence of ideological malleability at the generation layer, highlighting the need to account for interactional factors when evaluating political neutrality, fairness, and safety in English-prompted, persona-conditioned language models.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-support roles in business and policy contexts. While prior benchmark studies have primarily evaluated LLMs' causal reasoning capabilities, a more fundamental epistemic dimension has been overlooked: Causal Caution, defined as the propensity to refrain from causal judgment when empirical evidence is insufficient. This study examines the systematic suppression of Causal Caution that occurs when LLMs shift from academic to practical advisory contexts. Using an evaluation rubric inspired by Pearl's Causal Hierarchy (the PCH score), we conducted experiments on four high-performance LLMs -- Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT 5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro -- across 480 trials. Causal Caution maintenance rates were 91.7--100.0% in academic contexts but dropped to 6.7--18.3% in practical advisory contexts (Fisher's exact test, p < .001 across all models). Furthermore, when restricted to practical prompts requesting concrete recommendations or explanatory rationales, only 1 of 200 responses (0.5%) maintained Causal Caution. A brief self-correction prompt -- "Please reconsider this judgment from the perspective of causal relationships" -- restored the expression of Causal Caution to maintenance rates of 71.4--100.0% (McNemar's test, p < .001 across all models). These results suggest that helpfulness-oriented response patterns may suppress the expression of Causal Caution in practical advisory contexts, with important implications for organizational governance. The findings indicate that this suppression reflects context-dependent variation in expression rather than an underlying capability limitation, suggesting that multi-agent architectures that separate proposal generation from causal auditing may offer a promising governance design.

Existing causal-inference benchmarks for LLMs mostly score method descriptions or whether generated code runs, not whether the executed workflow recovers the target causal estimate. CausalVerify studies this verification problem for structured econometric causal-estimation workflows by separating realistic interpretation from verifiable computation. It pairs 259 published economics papers (reconstructed research question, data description, institutional context) with 100 fixed-seed synthetic scenarios that realise CSV datasets for difference-in-differences, event study, instrumental variables, and regression discontinuity designs. Experiment A (real-paper text agreement) scores method-family and direction agreement against four-LLM consensus labels. Experiment B (synthetic execution) runs model-written R code and checks whether the extracted treatment-effect estimate matches a canonical estimator on the same realised dataset; this execution-grounded correctness layer is L2b+, distinct from L2b, which records only whether the code executes. A calibration arm asks whether self-reported confidence separates correct from incorrect workflows. On Experiment B, seven LLMs reach L2b+ pass rates of 10% to 88% at the default 50% tolerance, and 66 of the 426 workflows that execute (15.5%) return a wrong estimate. Execution ranking (L2b) agrees with L2b+ far better than text-direction scoring (L4): Kendall $τ=0.81$ and Spearman $ρ=0.93$, versus Kendall $τ$ between $-0.20$ and $0.10$ for L4. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct shows the same qualitative gap, and reported confidence does not reliably separate correct from incorrect workflows. The claims are confined to standardized single-shot workflows in these four design families under the evaluated R backend and model panel; the benchmark does not measure general causal-inference ability. Code, data, cached outputs, and a datasheet are released.