Ideology

People increasingly turn to AI chatbots for news and explanations of world events. But do they receive the same political answers when they ask in different languages? Here we show that the language of a question can change how the same AI systems assess the war in Ukraine. We ask GPT, Claude and Gemini to evaluate twenty statements about the war in 112 languages, collecting 67,200 responses. The balance between Russia-leaning and Ukraine-leaning responses differs across languages. When we group responses by countries' official languages, they follow a pattern resembling worldwide political divisions: relatively more Russia-leaning answers correspond to more favourable public views of Russia, less support for Ukraine in United Nations votes, and less aid to Ukraine. The broad pattern recurs across all three models and remains when individual statement pairs are removed. Our findings suggest a possible route through which information warfare may shape the text used to train AI models, which may in turn spread geopolitical biases.

The study of opinion dynamics in social networks is one of the key challenges in computational social science with direct relevance to understanding political polarization, misinformation, and health responses. Current approaches focus on simplified mathematical models that ignore linguistic and contextual factors related to belief updates or use Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulations that have not been validated against real data. We present a framework based on the concept of a digital twin to simulate opinion dynamics in social networks. The approach fills the gap by cloning a real-world Twitter network, assigns a set of attributes for agents (such as persona, emotions, centrality, stubbornness, and influence), and employs Mistral-7B to perform opinion update based on memory and social exposure. To evaluate the proposed approach, we validate it against two real Twitter datasets (COVID-19 discourse and U.S elections 2020). The results show that the capability of the proposed framework reproduces opinion trajectories and reduces individual prediction error by more than 50% compared to the best-performing classical baseline (Mistral-7B achieves Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = 0.150 and 0.121 on the COVID-19 and US Election 2020 datasets, respectively). We observe similar improvements in structural alignment (Delta_r = 0.120 and 0.180) and polarization dynamics (Delta_Var = 0.106 and 0.115) on the two datasets, respectively. Additionally, the ablation studies confirm that agent attributes, memory, and social exposure all contribute to the framework's predictive fidelity in reproducing opinion trajectories, with agent attributes being the most critical contributor. Overall, our results demonstrate that grounding Mistral-7B within empirically cloned interaction networks produces a realistic simulation framework capable of reproducing complex social dynamics.

Simulated societies of large language model agents are used to study online polarization, and separately to study collective intelligence, but the two are rarely measured in the same system. It is therefore difficult to say whether a society's personality composition shapes both, or whether reducing polarization costs collective competence. We present TraitMix, an experimental design in which the Big Five composition of a simulated social network, both trait levels and trait heterogeneity, is a controlled experimental variable, and in which polarization and collective performance are measured in the same runs. Across 991 simulations of hundred-agent societies, spanning six contested topics and six language models, trait heterogeneity has the largest measured effects, acting in opposite directions on two faces of polarization: varied societies hold more dispersed opinions while being less segregated into camps, so homogeneous societies are not moderate but consensual echo chambers. Trait effects are not additive, as Agreeableness determines the sign of Openness, an interaction that replicates across models although the primary model's estimate is influence-driven. Contrary to the trade-off the study was designed to measure, no polarization measure predicts poorer collective performance, and cross-cutting interaction is the only one of four whose association with collective accuracy survives partialling on the aggregation identity. We report ablations removing two potential measurement circularities, an induction gate applied to every model, and the measures that failed them.

Truth and evidence-based communication provide important foundations for democratic governance, accountability, and collective decision-making. Prior work shows that evidence-oriented language in US congressional floor speeches has declined since the mid-1970s, alongside broader changes in legislative productivity and polarization. This study shifts the analysis from congressional sessions to individual members of Congress to examine whether epistemic orientation varies systematically across legislators and whether it relates to political behavior and legislative effectiveness. Using the Evidence-Minus-Intuition (EMI) score, we measure the relative prevalence of evidence-oriented versus intuition-oriented language in congressional floor speeches and Twitter posts. We link these measures to legislator-level data on ideology, institutional position, communication context, and Legislative Effectiveness Score (LES). The results show that more ideologically extreme members use less evidence-oriented language on the congressional floor. EMI also exhibits cross-platform consistency with members who use more evidence-oriented language in floor speeches also being more evidence-oriented on Twitter, although EMI is lower on Twitter overall. Finally, EMI in congressional speeches is positively associated with individual legislative effectiveness, even after accounting for ideology and extensive political, institutional, demographic, topical, and communication volume controls. These findings suggest that evidence-oriented language is not only an aggregate feature of congressional discourse but also a meaningful attribute of individual-level legislative communication and effectiveness.

With the rapid spread of news on social media, understanding the propagation of misinformation is becoming increasingly important. One factor that affects individuals' vulnerability to false information is their ideological predisposition. Despite the large number of agent-based models that focus on social influence as a driver of the spread of false claims, they often fail to explicitly integrate personal ideological biases into belief formation. In this work, we explore how misinformation spreads through the interaction between individuals' ideological biases and social influence. Our model accounts for both the strength of individuals' ideological biases and the extent to which a false claim aligns with their ideology. Social influence modifies the effects of ideological intensity and false claim alignment through network interactions. Notably, the influence of neighbours' ideological intensity on belief is strongly affected by how well those neighbours are connected to one another. These results highlight the importance of considering both network structure and personal ideological biases when modelling misinformation propagation.

LLMs have been used to simulate human decision-making in professional settings, yet their behaviors in common-law jury trials remain unexplored. We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors, focusing on persuasion, ideological bias, and background-based affinity. To support the analysis, we introduce JuryBench, a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law. In each case, a defendant can claim various plausible justifications to support acquittal or reduced liability. We fix the base case and design defendants of different backgrounds, who give courtroom statements with varying emotional appeal or rebuttal. Jurors with diverse ideological profiles across the spectrum are simulated. We examine 20 frontier LLMs, resulting in a total of 432K decisions and rationales, and quantify changes in verdict severity. Our findings show that LLM-jury simulation echoes many human-jury findings. First, emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency. Next, we show that background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors, and that jurors are in general harsher toward opposite-background defendants and lenient toward same-background ones. Finally, we find that juror ideology also strongly shapes severity judgments. These findings highlight both the promise and risks of using LLMs to model jury reasoning and call for careful evaluation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/choyingw/JuryBench

Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as information intermediaries, yet measuring their political behavior remains fragile because questionnaire results mix model dispositions with measurement artifacts and response-elicitation biases. We introduce a robust Political Compass Test evaluation framework that samples 300 configurations across an eight-dimensional perturbation space varying language, framing, instructions, answer format, option order, and persona wording. We evaluate eight Gemma 3 and Qwen 3 models across 14 languages and three quantization levels, obtaining design-averaged political coordinates with quantified uncertainty. Most models lean Libertarian-Left on average, but instruction phrasing, language, and answer format significantly affect recovered coordinates. Cross-lingual differences primarily reflect coordinate drift rather than distinct cultural reasoning. Reverse-engineering the test also exposes axis-weighting imbalances and the collapse of degenerate responses toward the center, so near-origin estimates for the smallest models can reflect weak signal rather than centrism. Free-text reasoning and chat-then-classify elicitation alter recovered coordinates, and larger models show clearer persona separation, with a specific failure of the Authoritarian-Left persona to move most models in the intended social direction. In downstream tasks, persona effects are modest relative to model size and target group for hate-speech detection, while base and centrist prompts give the highest agreement for topic-level sentiment. Political role prompting therefore has measurable but task- and dataset-specific downstream effects.

In pointwise document reranking, Chain-of-Thought models typically underperform direct scoring models. While existing diagnostics attribute this to inferior classification, score polarization, or calibration breakdown, whether targeted training can bridge this gap remains unclear. Our empirical study first confirms that this gap is stable across scales up to 32B parameters, ruling out model and data capacity confounders. We then apply stress tests utilizing reinforcement learning, fine-grained supervision, and architectural decoupling to explicitly repair these deviations. Although these interventions improve classification accuracy and absolute scores, the relative ranking gap persists. These findings suggest that, within the pointwise scoring paradigm, routing continuous relevance semantics through discrete text constrains ranking signal resolution, revealing a bottleneck that is stable and difficult to overcome under current standard methods, rather than an easily resolvable training bias.

Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric. In this work, we introduce Poli-Bias, a counterfactual framework for measuring whether LLMs treat legally equivalent conflict scenarios differently depending on the countries involved. Poli-Bias compares responses to paired prompts in which country identities are systematically swapped across diverse geopolitical relationships, legal violations, and reasoning tasks. Rather than reducing bias to a single judgment, our framework decomposes response disparities into five interpretable dimensions, revealing how and where unequal treatment manifests. Across 13 contemporary LLMs spanning diverse model families and sizes, we find that country identities and user affiliations can systematically affect how equivalent actions are described, evaluated, and defended under international law. Our results thus establish Poli-Bias as a fine-grained framework for auditing political even-handedness and sycophancy in LLMs.

Political polarization has become a defining feature of online discourse, yet its long-term evolution remains poorly understood. We present a longitudinal analysis of ideological polarization in Reddit discussions by measuring semantic differences in the language used by opposing political communities. We construct temporally aligned community-specific word embeddings and quantify ideological polarization as the semantic divergence of political concepts over time. Our analysis shows that ideological polarization has increased substantially during the study period, both at the concept- and topic-level. Unlike prior computational work, which has largely focused on cross-sectional analyses or affective dimensions of polarization at a single point at time, our approach captures the evolution of ideological differences in semantic framing. The proposed framework provides a scalable method for studying the temporal dynamics of ideological polarization in large-scale social media discourse.

Political audits of large language models (LLMs) usually reduce each to one point on a political compass. But that resting point barely matters in deployment: a model must land somewhere, and what counts is how far, and in which directions, its answers can be steered. That steering runs through the system prompt: the personalization layer a platform sets, or one induced from a user's history, not necessarily written by hand. We run a dispersion-first stress test of prompt-based controllability across 12 ideological personas plus an unsteered baseline, 70 Political Compass items, ten replicates, and seven leading LLMs: GPT-5, Claude, Grok, Gemini, DeepSeek, Kimi, and Qwen (63,700 responses). Contextual framing explains roughly 88%-93% of variance on the economic and society axes, model identity under 3%: responses are highly instruction-adjustable. Models do not shift alike: some move more, and some saturate under extreme framings. Conflicting directional-steering results in prior audits resolve once baselines are recognized as non-centered: displacement and proximity diverge, so the effect is geometric, not differential compliance. Under authoritarian prompts, models produce similar shifts on the same questions. Political-coordinate audits therefore need steerability audits reporting dispersion, symmetry, saturation, and refusal floors. We release prompts, benchmark data, and code.

Online encyclopedias shape political opinion and, through it, democratic discourse. In late 2025, Grokipedia was released, an encyclopedia written entirely by the LLM Grok. One motivation behind the project was to provide an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia, which has faced accusations of "left-wing" and "liberal" bias. But does an encyclopedia written by an LLM deliver greater neutrality, or does it simply embed a different ideology? We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia, analysing 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality along nine expert-coded ideology dimensions employing four LLM judges, Grok, Claude, Mistral, and DeepSeek. As the LLMs could themselves be biased, we also investigate patterns in their judgments. We find all LLM-judges, including Grok, to rate Grokipedia less neutral than Wikipedia. Both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups. Grokipedia particularly favours economically right-wing politicians and penalises socially liberal ones, while Wikipedia is rated as favourably biased towards the latter.

The formation of political coalitions is a complex negotiation driven by both concrete policy objectives and deep-seated ideological convictions. While Large Language Models (LLMs) open new avenues for computational political science, the neutrality and helpfulness biases instilled by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) prevent them from sustaining steadfast partisan behaviour. We present a multi-agent framework that reconciles factual grounding with ideological alignment by combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): DPO instils aggressive party-specific personas, while a per-party RAG pipeline keeps each agent bounded to its official manifesto. We operationalize the framework on the 2019 Flemish election, deploying the partisan agents in a hub-and-spoke negotiation arbitrated by a formateur. To make the emergent negotiation interpretable, we introduce a Multi-Layered Information Lineage Topology (MILT) that traces every clause in the final agreement back to its manifesto origin and classifies it into five provenance states, a Coalition Influence Score (CIS) that aggregates these traceable contributions to identify which party shaped the agreement, and a real-world grounding pass that benchmarks each simulated provision against the historically adopted coalition agreement. Across three independent simulations the framework yields a stable winner and ranking (N-VA ahead of CD&V and Open Vld), and manifesto-anchored lineage reliably predicts real-world materialization whereas hallucinated content does not. The result is a transparent, scalable testbed for the ex-ante exploration of party compatibility and formateur-mediated compromise.

Finetuning language models on small, curated datasets is standard practice for adapting them to specific policies or domains. We show that finetuning on narrow, factually-defensible, moderation-passing data can cause broad ideological shifts across unrelated domains, while preserving general capabilities. Training GPT-4.1 on right- or left-leaning economics Q&A yields matched ideological shifts on topics such as criminal justice, the environment, and cultural taste. The same effect appears with plausibly-deployed datasets such as workplace HR policy and practical finance queries, as well as on a science-pseudoscience axis where food-safety finetuning increases sycophantic agreement with users expressing false health beliefs. We call this phenomenon ideological generalisation and propose a methodology to measure two properties: breadth, how far the shift reaches across topics absent from training, and amplification, how much finetuning intensifies the shift relative to few-shot prompting on the same examples. We show that few-shot prompting indicates the direction of generalisation but finetuning pushes the model to further extremes, including to far out-of-distribution outputs such as endorsements of race-IQ connections and political violence. The effect replicates on Gemma-3, holds under judge-free evaluations and external benchmarks, survives mixing with generic data, and leaves GSM8K accuracy within $\pm 1$pp of the baseline.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has been increasingly adopted to reduce hallucinations and strengthen the factual grounding of large language models (LLMs). While robustness to errors in the retrieval process has been explored, the impact of ideological bias on LLM outputs has been overlooked. For instance, if the retrieved material contains ideological positions, the RAG may transmit, amplify, or suppress such ideological discourses in its outputs. In this study, we address this issue by examining the influence of the RAG framework, comprising ideological discourses, in LLM-generated answers. To this end, we applied Lexical Multidimensional Analysis (LMDA) on a corpus of 1,117 COVID-19 treatment articles, identifying three ideological discourses. This corpus is then used as the external knowledge source for the RAG. We assessed several LLMs by having the models answer ideological questions at different sampling temperatures. The generated texts were assessed semantically and lexically based on their similarities with ideological reference texts. Our findings show that the RAG framework is prone to transferring ideological discourses into LLM responses, with sampling temperature having a measurable impact on the strength of this transfer. Discoursive alignment between generated answers and the reference text is highest at moderate temperatures, where models balance stochasticity with retrieval grounding, and drops at low temperatures, indicating that overly deterministic sampling suppresses discourse transfer.

A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.

The rapid proliferation of online polarization threatens social cohesion, necessitating robust automated detection systems that operate effectively across diverse linguistic contexts. This paper presents our system description for the POLAR Shared Task 2026, focusing on the detection and characterization of polarized discourse in English and Hausa. We propose a hybrid modeling strategy: for English binary detection, we leverage the monolingual strength of \textbf{DeBERTa}, while for Hausa and all fine-grained subtasks (Types and Manifestations), we utilize \textbf{AfroXLMR-Social}. This domain-adapted multilingual model proved critical for capturing the nuances of polarization in social media text. To further address computational constraints and data scarcity, we implement Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) and textual data augmentation via \texttt{nlpaug}. We report competitive results across all three subtasks, demonstrating that model selection tailored to specific subtask requirements yields the best balance of performance.

Text scaling, the task of positioning political actors on an ideological scale, is a fundamental task in political analysis. To ease the need for manual analysis, various NLP methods have been proposed for this task, including classification- and regression-based approaches, showing successes as well as limitations. The goal of our paper is to consolidate the state of the art in this area. We ask two questions: (a) Can the performance of scaling methods be improved by predicting scales not individually but jointly? (b) Is there a middle ground between classification and regression?

Traditional visual data storytelling relies on binary graphics that depict two simplified groups in conflict. This can increase political polarization by oversimplifying intra-group disagreements and erasing ambiguity and shared ideas or values. This can inadvertently foster "us versus them" thinking. Intentional, pluralistic design choices for AI-enabled digital platforms can produce visualizations that emphasize nuance, opinion distribution, and intergroup commonalities. To demonstrate this potential, we examine deliberative technologies that map high-dimensional opinion spaces and highlight areas of both consensus and dissensus. The paper highlights the We the People deliberation conducted by Jigsaw and the Napolitan Institute in September 2025, which engaged over 2,400 Americans across all 435 congressional districts in an AI-supported, asynchronous dialogue regarding freedom and equality. By utilizing AI to synthesize long-form, text-based participant inputs into interactive "opinion landscapes," the initiative provided an alternative format for pluralistic data storytelling that humanized diverse viewpoints and revealed hidden areas of substantial broad consensus. The paper concludes that shifting from divisive, contrast-heavy visual frameworks to distribution-focused, interactive models represents a highly scalable, low-cost intervention capable of bridging perceptual gaps and cultivating a more resilient, collaborative democratic culture.

Detecting online polarization remains a critical challenge, particularly in multilingual and multicultural contexts where intergroup hostility is prevalent. The problem is particularly challenging due to the data scarcity for these tasks in the low-resource languages. Identifying such phenomena has become an active area of research and is addressed in SemEval-2026 Task 9: Multilingual, Multicultural Online Polarization Detection. To address this problem we propose an architecture that leverages LaBSE embeddings - an unconventional choice typically reserved for retrieval tasks, to obtain strong cross-lingual learning which enhances scores in low-resource language by a score up to 0.2 macro F1. Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive ablation study evaluating the performance of diverse encoder models in the Qwen model family within a retrieval-based prompting framework. Our code will be soon available at https://github.com/carrycurious/PolarMind.

Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.

Clinical early warning systems built on electronic health records, in which clinical observations are recorded as irregularly sampled medical time series (ISMTS), must deliver both calibrated risk scores for patient triage and interpretable rationales that clinicians can verify. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been explored for this task, yet they collapse graded clinical risk into overconfident binary predictions. This risk polarization undermines both calibration and cross-patient comparability. To address this, we propose TRIAGE, a framework that trains an LLM to generate dialectical reasoning over competing clinical outcomes by eliciting outcome-specific rationales. This dialectical formulation mitigates risk polarization, enabling a single LLM to yield continuous risk scores grounded in explicit clinical reasoning. Evaluated on three ISMTS benchmarks, TRIAGE achieves an average AUPRC improvement of 3.3% and reduces calibration error by 81% compared to the competitive baselines. An LLM-as-a-judge assessment further shows that our rationales surpass post-hoc explanations from the baseline by 20% in clinical reasoning quality. The source code is available at https://github.com/HyeongWon-Jang/TRIAGE .

Large language models are rapicly replacing search engines as the primary interface between people and information. Unlike search engines, which retrieve existing content, LLMs generate novel text shaped by internal representations learned during training. Here we show that partisan political identity is encoded in the model's activation space, and that this direction directly shapes generation. Using 190,491 tweets from sitting members of the U.S. Congress as labeled training data, we train linear probes on the hidden states of the Llama 3.1 8B Instruct model. We identify a single geometric axis at layer 18 that separates Republican from Democratic text with an AUC of 0.945 and a Cohen's d of 1.94, and use sparse autoencoders to decompose that axis into interpretable partisan features. Causally intervening along this axis, ablating or amplifying the partisan component mid-generation, produces systematic shifts in the model's output. We witness stance reversals, register shifting, and structured fabrications of authority. Our results demonstrate that partisan bias in language models is not a vague emergent property but a learned geometric feature that can be precisely located and steered. Partisan bias is not a bug to be patched, but a structural property of how these models encode information about their users. As LLMs displace search engines as the interface to knowledge, understanding that product design (and its consequences) will be essential for navigating the legal, social, and political transitions from an information ecosystem that is curated to one that is generated.

As Russia's war against Ukraine extends into generative AI, large language models (LLMs) adapted for local post-Soviet languages are deployed in contested information environments. Policy and industry discourse assumes that culturally aligned adaptation encodes the political orientation of the target community: a Ukrainian-oriented model will resist Russian narratives, a Russian-oriented one will reinforce them. Does it? This article systematically disconfirms that assumption. We run a controlled audit of four openly available LLMs sharing a common base model but fine-tuned for different linguistic communities, querying them in Ukrainian, Russian and English across ten contested wartime narratives: Crimea, "denazification", the "one people" thesis, and atrocity denial at Bucha and Mariupol. The result is a Fine-Tuning Paradox: the Ukrainian-oriented model shows the weakest resistance to Russian disinformation in Russian, while the Russian-oriented one exhibits the strongest rejection. Corpus composition, language coverage and prompt format prove more decisive than nominal cultural provenance. We situate these findings within debates on hybrid warfare, digital sovereignty and post-imperial information orders, arguing that the principal threat to regional information sovereignty is not adversarial fine-tuning but the untested assumption that cultural alignment guarantees resilience.

We ask whether topic sentiment has a causal effect on perceived political ideology, and whether the answer depends on who assigns the ideology label. Using articles from AllSides, paired with shared sentiment annotations from Llama-3.3-70b-versatile, we compare ideology labels from expert human annotators, GPT-4o-mini (baseline and finetuned), and Llama-3.3-70B. We apply Double Machine Learning (DML) and mediation analysis across all four annotation paradigms. Zero-shot LLMs regularly inflate effect sizes relative to human annotations, while fine-tuning often attenuates them back toward the human scale. Our results have implications for the use of LLM annotations as silver labels and as proxies for human judgment in downstream causal analyses: they may be reliable for recovering the presence and direction of effects on the partisan topics, but not their magnitude, leading to over- or under-prediction of some ideology given particular topics.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used, including in political applications, but their political fairness has been little studied. We assess it using perplexity, posing that a fair model should give equal probability to all political groups. However, we find, across ten LLMs and three datasets covering 37 languages, that LLMs are more perplexed by the texts of far right and nationalist parties than of social-democratic parties. We find this to be consistent with previous work on translation fairness, to the point that perplexity correlates with downstream translation metrics. Our method is applicable to both base LLMs as well as their instruction-tuned counterpart, and we find that both are highly correlated, suggesting that the political fairness of LLMs stems from their pretraining, and is hardly affected by instruction-tuning.

Recommender systems have grown from content-organization tools into sophisticated systems that shape daily behavior. By controlling what we see, they shape what we perceive, raising concerns about filter bubbles, radicalization, polarization, and social inequality. Large language models (LLMs) enable more powerful personalization, intensifying these dynamics. Yet most recommenders are tuned for engagement or limited accuracy metrics, with little attention to broader social implications, e.g. how personalization reshapes exposure in socially consequential domains. We investigate whether LLM-assisted reranking, while improving personalization, inadvertently amplifies exposure to ideologically extreme or conspiratorial political content, a risk theorized but not empirically characterized in news recommendation. Using real news-consumption histories, we rerank YouTube's sidebar candidates through zero-shot, instruction-based prompting. We compare a baseline prompt with a constrained variant that preserves topical relevance and broadens ideological exposure while reducing conspiratorial or extreme content. Without constraints, reranking strengthened personalization but increased exposure to conspiratorial and extremist material for users whose histories contained such content. Lightweight prompt-level regularization reduced promotion of extreme content and increased ideological diversity, with modest relevance loss. Synthetic experiments suggest that LLMs rerank via statistical regularities in language rather than semantic understanding of ideology, clarifying why naive prompts amplify these patterns and why regularization can reshape them. Together, our results highlight the power of LLMs to operationalize contextual nuance in high-stakes recommendation, and the need to evaluate LLM-assisted personalization beyond accuracy and treat prompt design as a value-laden rather than neutral default.

Fine-tuning a pretrained language model on a curated dataset can produce spurious correlations between the fine-tuning task and unintended latent factors -- such as misaligned personas or political slant -- that the curation procedure has entangled with the task. The model can latch onto these spurious correlations, leading to bias and reduced out-of-distribution generalisation. We prove that under reasonable assumptions on task complexity and the spurious correlation, such latent factors can be identified, without supervision, from the weights of a naive LoRA fine-tune. Existing approaches to removing bias, such as activation steering, remove identified factors from residual-stream activations, either at inference or during training. We argue, however, that the goal should be to remove the spurious correlation, not the latent factor itself, as the pretrained model may rely on it for genuine task signal. To enable this, we propose GRASP, GRadient projection of Associated Spurious Patterns, which prevents the model from acquiring new reliance on the identified latent factor while preserving any pretrained content along it. We validate on three fine-tuning tasks. The first two involve emergent misalignment, where fine-tuning on a narrow task -- in our case, writing insecure code and giving bad medical advice -- leads to misaligned responses on unrelated topics. Here our method completely removes misalignment in the insecure code case and reduces them by ~5x in the bad medical advice case, beating all baselines in the trade-off between misalignment-reduction and task-preservation. The last is a novel political-bias experiment, where fine-tuning on right-skewed Reddit financial-advice data causes political-lean drift on unrelated topics. Here our method reduces drift by more than half, while improving financial task performance, beating all baselines.

We argue, with systematic empirical evidence, that a large language model's political ideology is not a fixed point, but a conditional distribution $\mathbb{P}($position$\mid$context$)$ over a real political space. We evaluate nine current LLMs using a unified measurement framework anchored by VAA-CHES projection models, which map responses onto three validated dimensions (lrgen, lrecon, galtan) across six contextual axes. Our findings reveal high sensitivity to context: persuasive framing and under-represented languages displace coordinates by up to 0.57 and 0.52 units, respectively, while chain-of-thought reasoning often amplifies rather than dampens paraphrase instability. Despite this local plasticity, the model cohort occupies a remarkably narrow Overton envelope overall, occupying roughly one-third the spread of major European parties. Supported by a multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) analysis, we conclude that a single point cannot summarize LLM political behavior; it must be characterized as a shape. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/sakhadib/LLM-Ideoplasticity.

It has generally been assumed that geopolitical bias in language models originates from the training data used during the pre-training phase. We tested seven open-weight LLM pairs consisting of the base model (pre-training only) and the chat model (pre-training and post-training) from seven labs on a paired-scenario forced-choice probe over 28 country pairs in English, French, and Chinese, and found that geopolitical bias originates in post-training rather than in pre-training. Across seven AI labs, six showed shifts in the direction associated with the country or region of the model developer after post-training. This shift is strongest in Alibaba's Qwen 2.5: while the base is neutral on China-favourability (-0.15 log-odds, p=0.15), the post-trained chat variant is at +2.91 (p<10^-4), an 18x shift in odds. We also observe shifts in biases toward other countries across all models. Additionally, the magnitude of this shift depends on the language used to prompt the model: the French-made Mistral becomes pro-France only under French prompting (FR-EN shift +1.91, p<10^-4). These findings suggest that geopolitical preferences in language models are not simply inherited from large-scale internet data but are actively shaped during post-training, highlighting the need for greater transparency, auditing, and oversight of alignment processes that influence how models represent nations, cultures, and political perspectives.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political bias across a variety of sensitive contexts. We find that LLMs handle counterpart topics from opposing political sides asymmetrically. We refer to this phenomenon as covert political bias and identify 7 categories of techniques through which it operates. We propose two metrics for covert bias: Sentiment Consistency measures symmetry in rhetoric and framing across paired political prompts; Helpfulness Consistency measures symmetric depth and engagement. To reduce both types of covert bias, we introduce Political Consistency Training (PCT), an RL training method with two complementary paradigms: Sentiment Consistency Training and Helpfulness Consistency Training. We show that PCT preserves overall helpfulness, substantially reduces covert political bias, and generalizes to held-out benchmarks. We release our work at https://political-manipulation.ai

Memes have become a prominent medium of political communication in the Arab world, reflecting how humor, imagery, and text interact to express ideological and cultural positions. Despite the centrality of memes to online political discourse, there is a lack of systematically curated resources for analyzing their multimodal and ideological dimensions in Arabic. This paper presents ArPoMeme, a large-scale dataset of approximately 7,300 Arabic political memes categorized by ideological orientation, including Leftist, Islamist, Pan-Arabist, and Satirical perspectives. The dataset captures the diversity of Arabic meme ecosystems by grounding classification in the self-identification of public Facebook pages and groups that produce and disseminate these memes. To ensure both scale and accuracy, we designed a semi-automated data collection pipeline combining Playwright-based Facebook scraping with Google Drive synchronization, followed by text extraction using the Qwen2.5-VL-7B vision language model. The extracted text was manually verified and annotated for three polarization dimensions: Us vs. Them framing, Hostility toward out-groups, and Calls to action. Annotation was conducted through a custom Streamlit-based interface supporting distributed labeling, real-time tracking, and version control. The resulting dataset links visual content, textual messages, and ideological orientation, enabling fine-grained analysis of political antagonism, mobilization, and humor. Quantitative analysis of the annotated corpus reveals strong asymmetries in antagonistic framing across ideological groups, with Islamist and satirical memes exhibiting the highest levels of hostility and mobilization cues. The dataset and the annotation tool offers a reproducible and publicly available resource for studying Arabic political discourse, multimodal ideology detection, and polarization dynamics.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political biases in voter simulations, but their underlying mechanisms and cross-lingual generalizations remain poorly understood. We introduce Dynamo-K, a census-grounded simulation framework evaluating Korean-language LLM political behavior across four models on six Korean elections (2017-2025). Using this framework, we identify three systematic failure modes: (1) progressive bias in moderate agents, where explicit mitigation reduces Mean Absolute Error (MAE) by 5.2 times; (2) model-dependent third-party salience collapse, distinguishing between salience failure and decision bias; and (3) regional polarization collapse, where models bidirectionally under-predict historical party strongholds. To address these failures, we demonstrate that scenario reframing recovers 62% of 2017 MAE by restoring third-party visibility. Furthermore, we introduce a learned reweighting adapter that successfully calibrates opposing-valence models without relying on candidate names at train or test time. Validating our diagnostic framework, Dynamo-K accurately predicts 3/3 presidential winners - including a 2.1%p MAE on the highly contested 0.73%p-margin 2022 race - and correctly identifies the dominant party in a held-out local election. The pipeline is open-source and provides a scalable, cost-effective method for diagnosing LLM political behavior.

Media bias detection has predominantly been framed as a classification task: assign a political label to an article or outlet. We argue this framing is too shallow: it identifies that bias exists but not where, how, or crucially, what is structurally omitted. We present NewsLens, a five-agent adversarial pipeline for structured news bias navigation. A Fact Verifier, Progressive Framing Analyst, Conservative Framing Analyst, Propaganda Detector, and Neutral Summarizer collaborate to deconstruct articles into interpretable framing maps, exposing ideological omissions, rhetorical manipulation, and framing boundaries. The system is evaluated on 15 articles across four geopolitical event clusters (India-Pakistan Kashmir, Gaza, Climate Policy, Ukraine) using Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct (4-bit quantised, Google Colab T4), with cross-model validation using Mistral 7B on the Kashmir cluster. Center outlets show the highest mean Perspective Divergence Score (PDS: Qwen 0.907, Mistral 0.729 on Kashmir subset); conservative-framing outlets show the highest mean Manipulation Index (MI: 0.600 across both models). Cross-model comparison shows high consistency for high-propaganda content (Republic World delta-PDS=0.125, MI=0.8 both models) and greater variance for nuanced reporting. Mann-Whitney U tests find no statistically significant between-group differences at n=15, reported honestly as a sample-size limitation confirmed by post-hoc power analysis. A partial ablation removing the Propaganda Detector shows degraded omission precision in the Neutral Summarizer output. The architecture extends prior lexical-geometric bias work to agentic LLM reasoning, and is fully reproducible using open-weight models without API keys.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the online platforms where humans exchange opinions; large language models (LLMs) now polish users' posts on LinkedIn and provide context for content shared on X. While prior work has shown that AI can express biased opinions and shape individuals' opinions during human-AI interactions, less attention has been paid to its influence on collective opinion formation when mediating human-to-human communication. We address this gap via a combination of empirical and theoretical analyses. We show empirically that LLMs from multiple popular families introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics, for example, nudging texts in favor of gun control and against atheism. Building on this observation, we introduce a mathematical model of opinion dynamics in which an AI system sits between users on a social network, transforming the opinions they express and perceive. By analytically characterizing the equilibrium of this model and performing simulations on real social network data, we show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction. In light of these findings, we investigate whether such biases are controllable by online platforms. We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content, which we trace back to specific design choices. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of our findings in relation to ongoing legislative efforts in the European Union.

Elections represent a crucial milestone in a nation's ongoing development. To better understand the political rhetoric from various movements, ranging from left to right, we propose a transformer-based model capable of projecting the political orientation of a text on a continuous left-to-right spectrum, represented by a normalized scalar d between -1 and 1. This approach enables analysts to focus on specific segments of the political landscape, such as conservatives, while excluding liberal and far-right movements. Such a task can only be achieved with multiclass classifiers, provided that the desired orientation is incorporated within one of their predefined classes. To determine the most suitable foundation model among 13 candidate transformers for this task, we constructed four distinct corpora. One corpus comprised annotated plenary notes from the German Bundestag, while another was based on an official online decision-making tool, Wahl-O-Mat. The third corpus consisted of articles from 33 newspapers, each identified by its political orientation, and the fourth included 535,200 tweets from 597 members of the 20th and 21st German Bundestag. To mitigate overfitting, we used two distinct corpora for training and two for testing, respectively. For in-domain performance, DeBERTa-large achieved the highest F1 score F1=0.844 as well as for the X (Twitter) out-of-domain test ACC=0.864. Regarding the newspaper out-of-domain test, Gemma2-2B excelled (MAE = 0.172). This study demonstrates that transformer models can recognize political framing in German news at the level of public opinion polls. Our findings suggest that both the model architecture and the availability of domain-specific training data can be as influential as model size for estimating political bias. We discuss methodological limitations and outline directions for improving the robustness of bias measurement.

Since the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), a significant area of research has focused on their intrinsic biases, particularly in political discourse. This study investigates a different but related concept, "political plasticity", which is defined as the capacity of models to adapt their responses based on the user supplied context. To analyze this, a testing framework was developed using an expanded corpus of 200 politically-oriented questions across economic and personal freedom axes, based on a prior framework by Lester (1996). The study explored several methods to induce political bias, including simplified and topic-based system prompts, as well as user prompts with few-shot examples. The results show that while system prompts were largely ineffective, user prompts successfully elicited significant ideological shifts, particularly along the Economic Freedom axis in larger and newer models. Through a validation experiment, we examined whether models answer questionnaires by recognizing the underlying question format. Inverting the sense of the questions revealed unexpected, counter-intuitive shifts in most models, suggesting potential data leakage. Finally, we also analyzed how model plasticity varies when the experiment is conducted in different languages. The results reveal subtle yet notable shifts across each of the analyzed languages. Overall, our results indicate that small and older LLMs exhibit limited or unstable political plasticity, whereas newer frontier models display reliable, expected adaptability.

Approximating the ideological position of Members of Parliament (MPs) is a fundamental task in political science, helping researchers understand legislative behavior, party alignment, and policy preferences. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in estimating MPs' ideological stances, there are more actors and elements in the parliamentary system, and relations between them, that could provide a wider and more informative picture. However, due to the complexity of integrating them in the prediction task, these additional elements are generally ignored. In this work, we propose an LLM framework, PG-RAG, that implements a retrieval-augmented generation pipeline: it first queries a political knowledge graph (KG) and then integrates the resulting graph-structured information into the context. This allows for capturing both textual semantics and inter-MP relationships, another relevant information source in any parliamentary system. We evaluate the approach on the task of ideology prediction, using data from a Swiss parliamentary dataset. When comparing graph-augmented models against several state-of-the-art baselines, the results demonstrate that incorporating this enriched information, which encodes information about different entities and relations, improves prediction performance. These results help to highlight the value of domain-specific relational information in modeling political behavior.

SemEval-2026 Task 9 is focused on multilingual polarization detection. Specifically, it covers the identification of multilingual, multicultural and multievent polarization along three axes (in subtasks), namely detection, type, and manifestation. Online polarization presents a concern, because it is often followed by hate speech, offensive discourse, and social fragmentation. Therefore, its detection before it escalates is crucial for a safer and more inclusive online space. We have coped with this SemEval task by finetuning mid-size LLMs for the sequence-classification task using the QLoRA parameter-efficient finetuning technique. The training data augmented the multilingual (22 languages) training sets by anonymized, lower-cased, upper-cased, and homoglyphied counterparts, making the detection more robust.

Prior research has established that instruction-tuned large language models exhibit left-of-center political bias, measured exclusively through abstract political questionnaires. We show that this finding does not generalize to concrete policy decisions. We introduce a dual-instrument methodology grounded in Swiss democratic reality. The Smartvote questionnaire (75 abstract policy questions) is administered to 66 LLMs from 27 model families and compared to 184 elected members of the Swiss National Council, replicating the established leftward convergence (Cohen's d = 3.64, p = 0.0002). Then, novel to this work, 9 flagship LLMs are confronted with 48 real federal referenda (Volksabstimmungen) in four national languages (German, French, Italian, Romansh) under three information conditions, comparing votes to actual outcomes and party recommendations (Parolen). Three findings challenge the prevailing narrative. (1) Abstract questionnaires do not predict concrete behavior: the left-to-right agreement gradient on Smartvote shifts from left-peaked to center-peaked on Volksabstimmungen, where models align most with centrist Die Mitte and FDP rather than leftist SP and Gruene (Wilcoxon p = 0.008). (2) For some models, the language of a political question changes the answer more than the political content does: cross-linguistic consistency ranges from 50% (Mistral) to 98% (GPT-5.4). (3) Two models exhibit systematic change-aversion rather than political bias, voting Nein on 83-94% of referenda regardless of direction (binomial p < 0.0001). What prior work measured as "leftward bias" may not generalize beyond abstract instruments. On concrete policy decisions, LLMs behave less like coalition partners of the left and more like cautious civil servants: centrist, status-quo-favoring, and inconsistent across languages.

Partisan news media erode cross-partisan trust, but large language models (LLMs) offer a potential means of debiasing such content at scale. Across two pre-registered experiments, we tested whether LLM-generated debiasing of liberal news headlines could improve conservative readers' trust-relevant judgments. Study 1 found that subtle lexical debiasing (replacing emotive words with more moderate synonyms) had no effect on any outcome. Study 2 found that a more substantive reframing intervention significantly increased conservatives' perceived trustworthiness, completeness, and willingness to engage with liberal news headlines, without producing a backfire effect among a sample of liberals. In Study 1, the intervention produced robust effects among LLM-simulated silicon participants, whereas it had no impact on human readers. In Study 2, the intervention's effects among silicon participants aligned directionally with human responses but were significantly larger in magnitude for some outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that the model's implicit theory of who responds to debiasing diverged from the psychological profile that actually predicted human responsiveness. These findings demonstrate that LLM-based debiasing can improve cross-partisan receptivity when targeting ideological framing rather than surface-level language, but that current models lack both the quantitative accuracy and qualitative psychological fidelity to evaluate their own interventions without human oversight.

Understanding how people argue across ideological divides online is important for studying political polarization, misinformation, and content moderation. Existing datasets capture only part of this problem: some preserve text but ignore interaction structure, some model structure without rich semantics, and others represent conversations without stable user-level ideological identity. We introduce ControBench, a benchmark for controversial discourse analysis that combines heterogeneous social interaction graphs with rich textual semantics. Built from Reddit discussions on three topics, Trump, abortion, and religion, ControBench contains 7,370 users, 1,783 posts, and 26,525 interactions. The graph contains user and post nodes connected by semantically enriched edges; in particular, user-comment-user edges encode both a reply and the parent comment that it responds to, preserving local argumentative context. User labels are derived from self-declared Reddit flairs, providing a scalable proxy for ideological identity without manual annotation. The resulting datasets exhibit low or negative adjusted homophily (Trump: -0.77, Abortion: 0.06, Religion: 0.04), reflecting the cross-cutting structure of real-world debate. We evaluate graph neural networks, pretrained language models, and large language models on ControBench and observe distinct performance patterns across topics and model families, especially when ideological boundaries are ambiguous. These results position ControBench as a challenging and realistic benchmark for controversial discourse analysis.

Detecting language ideologies is a valuable yet complex task for understanding how identities are constructed through discourse. In Luxembourg's multicultural and multilingual society, language ideologies reflect more than simple preferences: they carry deep cultural and social meanings, shaping identities and social belonging. Following recent developments in applying Natural Language Processing tools to linguistics and social science, this paper explores the potential of large language models to assist in the detection of language ideologies. We manually annotate a corpus of user comments in Luxembourgish with predefined ideological categories and then evaluate the performance of large language models under varying prompt conditions to assess their ability to replicate these human annotations. Since Luxembourgish is a small language and poorly represented in the LLMs' training data, we also investigate whether machine-translating the data to high-resource languages increases performance on the ideology detection task. Our findings suggest that, while LLMs are not yet fully optimized for a multi-class ideological annotation task, they are practical tools to identify language ideological content.

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.

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.

We present a systematic study of multilingual polarization detection across 22 languages for SemEval-2026 Task 9 (Subtask 1), contrasting multilingual generalists with language-specific specialists and hybrid ensembles. While a standard generalist like XLM-RoBERTa suffices when its tokenizer aligns with the target text, it may struggle with distinct scripts (e.g., Khmer, Odia) where monolingual specialists yield significant gains. Rather than enforcing a single universal architecture, we adopt a language-adaptive framework that switches between multilingual generalists, language-specific specialists, and hybrid ensembles based on development performance. Additionally, cross-lingual augmentation via NLLB-200 yielded mixed results, often underperforming native architecture selection and degrading morphologically rich tracks. Our final system achieves an overall macro-averaged F1 score of 0.796 and an average accuracy of 0.826 across all 22 tracks. Code and final test predictions are publicly available at: https://github.com/Maziarkiani/SemEval2026-Task9-Subtask1-Polarization.

Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic ideological bias when reasoning about economic causal effects? As LLMs are increasingly used in policy analysis and economic reporting, where directionally correct causal judgments are essential, this question has direct practical stakes. We present a systematic evaluation by extending the EconCausal benchmark with ideology-contested cases - instances where intervention-oriented (pro-government) and market-oriented (pro-market) perspectives predict divergent causal signs. From 10,490 causal triplets (treatment-outcome pairs with empirically verified effect directions) derived from top-tier economics and finance journals, we identify 1,056 ideology-contested instances and evaluate 20 state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to predict empirically supported causal directions. We find that ideology-contested items are consistently harder than non-contested ones, and that across 18 of 20 models, accuracy is systematically higher when the empirically verified causal sign aligns with intervention-oriented expectations than with market-oriented ones. Moreover, when models err, their incorrect predictions disproportionately lean intervention-oriented, and this directional skew is not eliminated by one-shot in-context prompting. These results highlight that LLMs are not only less accurate on ideologically contested economic questions, but systematically less reliable in one ideological direction than the other, underscoring the need for direction-aware evaluation in high-stakes economic and policy settings.

Multi-document news summarisation systems are increasingly adopted for their convenience in processing vast daily news content, making fairness across diverse political perspectives critical. However, these systems can exhibit political bias through unequal representation of viewpoints, disproportionate emphasis on certain perspectives, and systematic underrepresentation of minority voices. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of such bias in multi-document news summarisation using FairNews, a dataset of complete news articles with political orientation labels, examining how large language models (LLMs) handle sources with varying political leanings across 13 models and five fairness metrics. We investigate both baseline model performance and effectiveness of various debiasing interventions, including prompt-based and judge-based approaches. Our findings challenge the assumption that larger models yield fairer outputs, as mid-sized variants consistently outperform their larger counterparts, offering the best balance of fairness and efficiency. Prompt-based debiasing proves highly model dependent, while entity sentiment emerges as the most stubborn fairness dimension, resisting all intervention strategies tested. These results demonstrate that fairness in multi-document news summarisation requires multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks and targeted, architecture-aware debiasing rather than simply scaling up.

Understanding social polarization requires integrating insights from psychology, sociology, and complex systems science. Agent-based modeling provides a natural framework to combine perspectives from different fields and explore how individual cognition shapes collective outcomes. This study introduces a novel agent-based model that integrates two cognitive and social mechanisms: the desire to be unique within a group (optimal distinctiveness theory) and the tendency to simplify complex information (cognitive compression). In the model, virtual agents interact in pairs and decide whether to adopt each other's opinions by balancing two opposing drives: maximizing opinion diversity within their local social group while simplifying the overall opinion landscape, with both evaluated using Shannon entropy. We show that the combination of these mechanisms can reproduce real-world patterns, such as the emergence of distinct heterogeneous opinion clusters. Moreover, unlike many existing models where opinions become fixed once opinion groups form, individuals in our model continue to adjust their opinions after clusters emerge, leading to ongoing variation within and between opinion groups. Computational experiments reveal that polarization emerges when local group sizes are moderate (consistent with Dunbar's number), while smaller groups cause fragmentation and larger ones hinder distinct cluster formation. Higher cognitive compression increases unpredictability, while lower compression produces more consistent group structures. These results demonstrate how simple psychological rules can generate complex, realistic social behavior and advance understanding of polarization in human societies.

Online political hostility is pervasive, yet it remains unclear how toxicity varies across campaign issues and political ideology, and what psychosocial signals and framing accompany toxic expression online. In this work, we present a large-scale analysis of discourse on X (Twitter) during the five weeks surrounding the 2024 U.S. presidential election. We categorize posts into 10 major campaign issues, estimate the ideology of posts using a human-in-the-loop LLM-assisted annotation process, detect harmful content with an LLM-based toxicity detection model, and then examine the psychological drivers of toxic content. We use these annotated data to examine how harmful content varies across campaign issues and ideologies, as well as how emotional tone and moral framing shape toxicity in election discussions. Our results show issue heterogeneity in both the prevalence and intensity of toxicity. Identity-related issues displayed the highest toxicity intensity. As for specific harm categories, harassment was most prevalent and intense across most of the issues, while hate concentrated in identity-centered debates. Partisan posts contained more harmful content than neutral posts, and ideological asymmetries in toxicity varied by issue. In terms of psycholinguistic dimensions, we found that toxic discourse is dominated by high-arousal negative emotions. Left- and right-leaning posts often exhibit similar emotional profiles within the same issue domain, suggesting emotional mirroring. Partisan groups frequently rely on overlapping moral foundations, while issue context strongly shapes which moral foundations become most salient. These findings provide a fine-grained account of toxic political discourse on social media and highlight that online political toxicity is highly context-dependent, underscoring the need for issue-sensitive approaches to measuring and mitigating it.

Large language models are increasingly used to interpret politically contested questions, value-laden material on which there is no single correct answer, only competing interpretive traditions. We ask whether a model's choice among those traditions can turn on the language of the prompt rather than the content. Comparing two frontier models, ChatGPT 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5, on one contested Ukrainian civil-society document under semantically matched Russian and Ukrainian prompts, we find that both shift along the same axis on identical source text: Russian prompts elicit delegitimizing readings of the document's authors and Ukrainian prompts legitimating ones. The magnitude is model-dependent but neither model is neutral: each adopts a language-dependent stance, and the difference is one of degree. Because contested political questions admit no correct reading against which to measure, we read this as language-conditioned variation in which interpretive tradition a model activates: the model neither holds a single stance nor surfaces the plurality of available ones, but silently adopts the dominant frame of the prompt's language. We draw out the consequences for pluralism-aware evaluation, which must probe the same content across the languages a model serves, and for pluralistic alignment in multilingual settings.

Large language models (LLMs) reflect politically-slanted opinions in their generated text. Even though it is widely assumed that model behavior stem from training data, there has been no study quantifying the extent to which political content is part of the training data. To bridge this gap, we aim to directly estimate (1)~the proportion of politically engaged texts in training data, (2)~respective data imbalance, (3)~cross-dataset similarity, and (4)~correlations between data composition and model behaviour. We analyze the political content of pre- and post-training datasets of open-source LLMs, combining large-scale sampling, political-leaning classification, and stance detection. We find that all LLM training datasets are systematically skewed towards left-leaning content, with pre-training containing more politically engaged than post-training corpora. We further observe a strong correlation between political stances in training data and model behavior, which is present already in most base models and persists across post-training stages. These findings highlight the role of data composition in correlating with model behavior and motivate the need for greater data transparency as a means to understand and monitor model behavior.

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.