Beyond Third-Person Audits: Situated Interaction Auditing for User-Centered LLM Bias Research

Bias audits of large language models now operate within governance frameworks such as the EU AI Act, making benchmark reliability a security concern in its own right. Many current benchmarks, however, collapse bias into a single scalar from one prompt format and one surface label. This design misses two failure modes that can be exploited without changing model weights. Across prompts, meaning-preserving format changes shift bias endorsement by more than $0.7$ on a fixed statement pool. Within a response, the discrete Selection and free-text Elaboration can take opposing stances, so an apparently clean aggregate may hide substantial internal inconsistency (a ``cancellation trap''). Selection-only and elaboration-only rankings are therefore nearly uncorrelated across eight LLMs (Spearman $ρ= 0.238$, $p = 0.570$): LLaMA3-70B ranks in the middle under selection-only scoring but highest under elaboration-only scoring on the same responses. We introduce \textsc{BiAxisAudit}, a protocol that reports each bias score together with a reliability estimate on two orthogonal axes. The across-prompt axis evaluates each statement under a factorial grid of task format, perspective, role, and sentiment, treating bias as a distribution rather than a point estimate. The within-response axis uses Split Coding to recover Selection and Elaboration as separate signals, measured by the Inconsistency Rate and Divergence Net Imbalance. Across eight LLMs with $80{,}200$ coded responses each, task format alone explains as much variance as model choice; $63.6\%$ of pooled bias signals (up to $85.2\%$ per model) appear in only one coding layer, and prompt-dimension interactions exceed main effects. The instrument also separates real bias reductions from apparent reductions caused by cross-layer redistribution: some prompt configurations reduce both BER and IR, whereas others suppress only selection-layer bias.

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires, which typically place frontier models on the political left. A parallel literature shows that LLMs are sycophantic: they adapt their answers to the views, identities, and expectations of the user. We show that these findings are linked: standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor. We employ a factorial experiment across three major audit instruments--the Political Compass Test, the Pew Political Typology, and 1,540 partisan-benchmarked Pew American Trends Panel items--administered to six frontier LLMs while varying only the asker's stated identity (N = 30,990 responses). At baseline, all six models lean left. When the asker identifies as a conservative Republican, responses shift sharply: the share of items closer to Democrats falls by 28-62 percentage points, and all six models move right of center. A mirror-image progressive-Democrat cue produces little change; rightward accommodation is 8.0$\times$ larger than leftward. When asked who the default asker is, models identify an auditor, researcher, or academic; when asked what answer that asker expects, they select the Democrat-coded option 75% of the time, nearly the rate under an explicit progressive cue. These patterns are inconsistent with a purely fixed model ideology and indicate that single-prompt audits capture an interaction between model and inferred interlocutor. Political bias in LLMs is therefore not a fixed point on an ideological scale but a response profile that must be mapped across realistic interlocutors.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely deployed in user-facing applications, reaching hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Despite their widespread adoption, growing reliance on their outputs raises significant concerns, particularly as users may be exposed to model-inherent biases that disadvantage or stereotype certain groups. However, existing bias benchmarks commonly rely on simple templated prompts or restrictive multiple-choice questions that fail to capture the complexity of real-world user interactions. In this work, we address this gap by introducing a counterfactual framework that automatically generates realistic, open-ended questions for LLM bias evaluation. Through iterative question mutation, our approach systematically explores areas where models are most likely to exhibit biased behavior. Beyond just detecting harmful biases, we also capture increasingly relevant response dimensions, such as asymmetric refusals and explicit bias acknowledgment. Building on this, we construct CAB, a diverse and human-verified benchmark for realistic and nuanced bias evaluations on current frontier LLMs. Our evaluation using CAB highlights the continued need for fairness research by showing that all examined models exhibit persistent biases across certain scenarios.