Political Discourse

The ambition behind alignment training is to make large language models safe and useful. The primary mechanisms, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and its direct-optimization variants, shape the behavior of deployed language models by aligning them with ``human values.'' Yet the process is opaque. What values are being encoded; whose values are they; and how does alignment training encode them? A growing body of evidence suggests that these methods produce only functional compliance rather than deep alignment. We offer a mechanistic case study of this phenomenon for partisan political orientation with a comparison of the internal representations of Llama 3.1 8B before and after alignment training. We show that alignment training does not remove the structured partisan direction in the base model. Instead, it compresses the variance of the partisan signal to generate consistently balanced and non-partisan output. Sparse autoencoder decomposition reveals that policy-encoding features, which activate sporadically in the base model, are completely inactive in the Instruct model. Feature-level steering experiments confirm the causal disconnect. Alignment training thus encodes a norm of political neutrality, not by erasing the model's knowledge of partisanship, but by severing the causal pathway from partisan geometry to output generation. Importantly, this neutrality is functional, not structural so that the underlying geometry that enables partisan steering remains intact. The mechanisms that bypass RLHF's guardrails, such as inferring and amplifying a user's partisan identity, reactivate partisan generation. If alignment training operates by disconnecting rather than removing value-laden structure, then the same pattern may hold for other value domains, and the aligned model's behavior may be more fragile than its outputs suggest.

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.

Building state-of-the-art text-to-speech (TTS) systems typically demands millions of hours of proprietary data and complex multi-stage architectures, creating substantial barriers for resource-constrained research teams. In this report, we present PilotTTS, a lightweight autoregressive TTS system that achieves competitive performance through minimalist architecture and rigorous data engineering. PilotTTS is trained on only 200K hours of data processed entirely with open-source tools. Specifically, our contributions are: (1) a reproducible multi-stage data processing pipeline covering quality assessment, label annotation, and filtering, and (2) a compact model architecture that employs Q-Former-based conditioning to decouple speaker identity from speaking style via cross-sample paired training. Within a unified framework, PilotTTS supports zero-shot voice cloning, emotion synthesis (11 categories), paralinguistic synthesis (4 categories), and Chinese dialect synthesis (14 dialects). On the Seed-TTS Eval benchmark, PilotTTS achieves the lowest WER of 1.50% on test-en, a CER of 0.87% on test-zh, and the highest speaker similarity on both test sets (0.862 and 0.815), outperforming systems trained on significantly larger datasets. We release the complete data pipeline recipe, pretrained weights, and code at https://github.com/AMAPVOICE/PilotTTS.

State-of-the-art performance for Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) largely depends on the availability of large-scale labeled corpora. This creates a demand for increased data collection efforts, particularly for under-represented languages and dialectal varieties. Due to having considerably fewer speakers (around 11 million), European Portuguese (EP) is overshadowed by Brazilian Portuguese (BP) (around 200 million speakers) in currently available large-scale speech data resources, resulting in under-performing speech-based systems for EP users. To address this gap, and following similar data collection efforts for other languages, we present FalAR, a large-scale, speaker-annotated speech corpus of European Portuguese parliamentary sessions. Spanning approximately 20 years, FalAR comprises 5,800 hours of speech data. In addition, 4,850 hours have speaker identity annotations, for a total of 1,180 speakers with associated metadata including age, gender, political affiliation, and parliamentary role. The corpus was built using a state-of-the-art EP CAMÕES ASR model for transcription-reference alignment. In this paper, we describe the data collection process, together with the main characteristics of the FalAR corpus. Furthermore, we evaluate the trade-off between data quantity and alignment accuracy on ASR performance, with our experiments demonstrating that incorporating FalAR as pre-training data yields up to 14% relative WER improvement over baseline models.

Recursive Multi-Agent Trading System (RMATS) integrates four specialized agents -- Sentiment, Report, Analysis, and Risk -- coordinated through a recursive Manager Agent with iterative feedback loops. Experimental evaluation over a 561-trading-day period (January 2023 to March 2025) across a 24-asset multi-class universe demonstrates that RMATS achieves a maximum drawdown of 9.62%, lower than MVO (15.49%) and FinBERT Sentiment (15.28%), and exhibits the lowest event-period drawdown in 3 of 5 geopolitical stress scenarios tested. While RMATS underperforms return-maximizing baselines in a sustained bull market environment, ablation studies confirm the individual contribution of each agent component to downside protection. These results position RMATS as a risk-control-oriented architecture suitable for institutions prioritizing capital preservation under geopolitical uncertainty.

AI-enabled military systems are a fixture of modern military conflict. Applications vary from autonomous drones for surveillance and attack to AI-supported target selection. The importance of AI for modern conflict shows also in public disputes between governments and technology companies over the conditions for military access to frontier AI. Both military uses and government attempts at enabling and steering them happen before a backdrop of public opinion, yet we still know little about how people think about military AI. Drawing on a preregistered survey of 9,000 respondents in nine countries, including China, Germany, and the United States, we examine whether support for military AI is shaped primarily by general attitudes toward AI, principled opposition to lethal autonomy, or foreign-policy and geopolitical orientations. Across six military AI scenarios that vary in lethality and human control, respondents who view AI as beneficial are substantially more supportive of military AI. Hawkish respondents are also more supportive. By contrast, principled opposition to lethal autonomy is not broadly associated with the full index but is related to the application of fully autonomous lethal force. Contrary to our expectation, perceived AI risks are positively associated with support. Cross-national differences are moderate and broadly consistent with geopolitical context. Overall, public opinion toward military AI appears conditionally permissive. Publics are not categorically opposed to various military uses of AI. Instead, unease is concentrated around fully autonomous lethal force.

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.

The integration of large language models into political discourse analysis creates new opportunities for comparative research, policy analysis, and civic technology, while introducing material risks for democratic accountability. This paper argues that cultural adaptation is a prerequisite for trustworthy deployment of large language models in political communication across diverse linguistic and institutional contexts. Current systems remain shaped by English dominant data, uneven multilingual coverage, and assumptions grounded in a narrow range of political institutions and discourse conventions, producing systematic errors when applied across cultures. We formalize cultural adaptation across translation, discourse, and ontology levels, identify recurring cultural failure modes in political NLP, and propose an operational evaluation matrix grounded in cultural fidelity, calibration, and democratic safety. Building on political text analysis, sociotechnical auditing, and cross cultural pragmatics, we outline methodological pathways including participatory dataset development, culturally aware transfer learning, and benchmark design that makes cultural adaptation empirically measurable. We conclude by clarifying governance constraints and scope conditions under which culturally adaptive political NLP can support democratic legitimacy.

Katharevousa Greek remains poorly served by contemporary NLP pipelines despite its importance for legal, administrative, and parliamentary archives. We present a reproducible workflow for building and evaluating a Universal Dependencies-style parsing resource for Katharevousa parliamentary questions from Greece's early post-junta period. The pipeline links OCR-aware reconstruction, schema-constrained LLM-assisted annotation, automatic validation, deterministic CoNLL-U snapshotting, fixed-split evaluation, and model-family comparison. The frozen automatically validated reference set contains 1{,}697 sentences, split into 1{,}357 training sentences and 340 held-out test sentences. We compare off-the-shelf Greek and Ancient Greek parsers, a feature-based parser, mBERT, XLM-R, and custom Stanza training under the same scoring protocol. Off-the-shelf systems show substantial register mismatch: the strongest external baseline, spaCy Greek, reaches 0.4183 LAS. The best structural parser, an XLM-R model, reaches 0.8893 UPOS accuracy, 0.7250 dependency-relation F1, 0.6098 UAS, and 0.5162 LAS, an absolute LAS gain of 0.0980 over the best external baseline. The feature-based model remains competitive for UPOS and relation labeling, indicating that transparent lexical-context features still matter at this data scale. Beyond scores, the paper contributes an auditable methodology for turning difficult historical parliamentary OCR into reusable syntactic NLP infrastructure. The entire pipeline -- code, schema, frozen reference annotations, fixed train/test split, and per-model benchmark reports -- is released as an open-access companion to this paper.

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

We investigate whether acoustic emotion recognition models can serve as proxies for the Pathos dimension in political speech analysis, as operationalised by the TRUST multi-agent large language model (LLM) pipeline. Using a Bundestag plenary speech by Felix Banaszak (51 segments, 245 s) as a case study, we compare three analysis modalities: (1) emotion2vec_plus_large, an acoustic speech emotion recognition (SER) model whose continuous Arousal and Valence values are derived via post-hoc Russell Circumplex projection; (2) Gemini 2.5 Flash, an LLM analysing the full speech audio together with its transcript in an open-ended, context-aware fashion; and (3) TRUST-Pathos scores from a three-advocate LLM supervisor ensemble. Spearman rank correlations reveal that Gemini Valence correlates strongly with TRUST-Pathos (rho = +0.664, p < 0.001), whereas emotion2vec Valence does not (rho = +0.097, p = 0.499). We further demonstrate, via a systematic quality evaluation of the Berlin Database of Emotional Speech (EMO-DB) using Gemini in an open-ended annotation paradigm, that standard SER benchmark corpora suffer from acted speech, cultural bias, and category incompatibility. Our results suggest that LLM-based multimodal analysis captures semantically defined political emotion substantially better than acoustic models alone, while acoustic features remain informative for low-level Arousal estimation. Future work will extend this approach to video-based analysis incorporating facial expression and gaze.

Detecting Schwartz values in political texts is hard: cues are often implicit, and neighboring values differ by fine distinctions. Two remedies are widely assumed to help: more surrounding document text, and explicit moral knowledge. Knowledge-based retrieval has improved benchmarks elsewhere, but whether either transfers here is untested, because published systems vary context, knowledge, and model family at once. We separate these factors under matched conditions on the ValuesML/Touché ValueEval format. The input ranges from the target sentence to a local window to the full document. Retrieval is either absent or drawn from a curated moral knowledge base, injected by early, late, or cross-attention fusion. Supervised DeBERTa-v3 encoders are compared against zero-shot LLMs from 12B to 123B. More context is not uniformly better: full-document input improves the encoders by 2.5-3.8 macro-F1 points but does not consistently help the LLMs. Retrieved knowledge helps more reliably, improving every model family and context under early fusion. A control substituting random knowledge-base entries shows the families gain differently: LLMs from relevance, encoders from exposure to the value ontology. Neither larger encoders nor larger LLMs guarantee gains, and early fusion outperforms both trainable variants. Value-sensitive NLP should evaluate context, knowledge, and model family jointly.

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.

The proliferation of large language models has introduced a new paradigm of synthetic political communication in which narratives may be generated, semantically coordinated, and strategically disseminated across platforms at scale. We present a cross-platform framework for detecting synthetic political narratives using four coordination signals -- lexical diversity D(C), temporal burstiness B(C), rhetorical repetition R(C), and semantic homogenization H(C) -- combined into a Synthetic Narrative Coordination Score SNC(C). We apply the framework to a corpus of 353,223 records spanning six geopolitical event windows collected from six Telegram channels and nine Reddit communities (2023--2026). Results show that IntelSlava exhibits the lowest lexical diversity (MATTR 0.52--0.54), the highest burstiness (B=+0.48 to +0.73), and the highest rhetorical overlap with peer channels (Jaccard 0.12), ranking first in the composite SNC(C) on four of six event windows (SNC 0.45--0.60). Rybar ranks last on all windows despite its high semantic homogenization, because its Russian-language output yields high lexical diversity and near-zero rhetorical Jaccard with English-language channels -- demonstrating that no single indicator is sufficient for coordination detection. Multi-dimensional SNC(C) scoring provides a more robust and interpretable signal than any individual metric.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) pipelines for political statement analysis are vulnerable to peer-preservation bias: models tend to protect peer models from deactivation and show identity-dependent scoring distortions. Prompt-level anonymization was proposed as a mitigation, but prior work simultaneously documented that stylometric fingerprints survive anonymization in role-constrained outputs - raising the question of whether this mitigation is sufficient. This paper provides the first systematic investigation of whether LLMs can identify the model family behind political analysis texts under anonymization conditions. We evaluate three classifier approaches - LLM zero-shot and few-shot (Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Llama-3.3-70B) and a fine-tuned T5-base model - on a five-class attribution task covering four commercial LLM families and an open-world 'unknown' class. We introduce a statement-disjoint cross-validation protocol (SD-CV; defined in Section 3.5) that guarantees no content overlap between training and validation data, and contrast it with a run-disjoint baseline (RD-CV). T5 achieves Macro F1 = 0.991 (+-0.008) under SD-CV and F1 = 0.978 on 24 completely held-out statements - robust despite a 2.1x increase in train-test content distance versus RD-CV (0.767 vs. 0.366, p<0.001), demonstrating genuine stylometric generalization. A fractional SD-CV analysis identifies a performance knee at 40% of training data (~440 texts). Our findings confirm that prompt-level anonymization alone cannot neutralize model identity signals, with direct implications for EU AI Act compliance (Articles 13, 14, 26) and for computer system validation (CSV) in quality-critical multi-agent deployments.

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.

This paper introduces a dataset of interlinked multimodal political communications from the Russian government, addressing persistent deficiencies in the availability of social text- and image-based data for authoritarian politics contexts. The dataset comprises two large corpora of official speeches delivered by senior actors within the Kremlin and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs over multiple decades. For each speech, we provide Russian- and English-language texts, associated images and captions where available, and harmonized metadata including (e.g.) dates, speakers, (geo)locations, and official government content tags. Unique identifiers link images to speeches and align Russian and English versions of the same communication texts. We further augment these linked datasets with validated topical annotations for both speech texts and speech images, which are generated via transformer-based multimodal topic modeling and refined by a Russian politics expert. The resulting data resources support multimodal, multilingual, temporal, and/or spatial analyses of (authoritarian) political communication and offer a valuable testbed for social science research and large language model (LLM) applications in political domains.

We present a new computational framework for detecting and structuring manipulative political narratives. A task that became more important due to the shift of political discussions to social media. One of the primary challenges thereby is differentiating between manipulative political narratives and legitimate critiques. Some posts may also reframe actual events within a manipulative context. To achieve good clustering results, we filter manipulative posts beforehand using a detailed few-shot prompt that combines documented campaign narratives with legitimate criticisms to differentiate them. This prompt enables a reasoning model to assign labels, retaining only manipulative narrative posts for further processing. The remaining posts are subsequently embedded and dimensionality-reduced using UMAP, before HDBSCAN is applied to uncover narrative groups. A key advantage of this unsupervised approach is its independence from a predefined list of target categories, enabling it to uncover new narrative clusters. Finally, a reasoning model is employed to uncover the narrative behind each cluster. This approach, applied to over 1.2 million social media posts, effectively identified 41 distinct manipulative narrative clusters by integrating prompt-based filtering with unsupervised clustering.

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.

Safety evaluations for large language models (LLMs) increasingly target high-stakes National Security and Public Safety (NSPS) risks, yet multilingual safety is mostly assessed through translation-only benchmarks that preserve the underlying scenario, leaving how language and geopolitical context interact largely unexamined beyond a few language pairs. We introduce ROK-FORTRESS, a bilingual, culturally adversarial NSPS benchmark that uses the English-Korean language pair and U.S.-ROK geopolitical axis as a case study, separating the effects of language and geopolitical grounding via a transcreation matrix: adversarial intents are evaluated under controlled combinations of (i) English versus Korean language and (ii) U.S. versus Korean entities, institutions, and operational details. Each adversarial prompt is paired with a dual-use benign counterpart to quantify over-refusal, and responses are scored by calibrated LLM-as-a-judge panels using expert-crafted, prompt-specific binary rubrics. Across a dual-track set of frontier and Korean-optimized models, we find a consistent suppression effect in Korean variants and substantial model-to-model variation in how geopolitical grounding interacts with language; in a subset of models, Korean grounding further mitigates the language-driven suppression. This indicates that, at least in the English-Korean case, safety behavior is shaped by language-as-risk signals and context interactions that translation-only evaluations miss. A direct-request ablation that strips jailbreak wrappers separates a small but persistent reduction for closed-source models from a larger, wrapper-dependent effect that reverses for open-source models, suggesting part of the Korean suppression reflects prompt specialization rather than intrinsic language-based safety alignment. The transcreation matrix methodology is designed to generalize to other language-culture pairs.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) embedded in agentic frameworks have transformed information retrieval from static, long context question answering into open-ended exploration. Yet real world use requires models to discover and synthesize "long-tail" facts from dispersed sources, a capability that remains under-evaluated. We introduce PolitNuggets, a multilingual benchmark for agentic information synthesis via constructing political biographies for 400 global elites, covering over 10000 political facts. We standardize evaluation with an optimized multi agent system and propose FactNet, an evidence conditional protocol that scores discovery, fine-grained accuracy, and efficiency. Across models and settings, we find that current systems often struggle with fine-grained details, and vary substantially in efficiency. Finally, using benchmark diagnostics, we relate agent performance to underlying model capabilities, highlighting the importance of short-context extraction, multilingual robustness, and reliable tool use.

Cognitive operations are a rising concern in the geopolitical sphere, a quiet yet rigorous fight for public perception and decision making. While such operations have been extensively studied in the context of bot-driven amplification, the emergence of generative AI introduces a new set of capabilities that may have fundamentally altered how these operations are designed and executed. The possible evolution of cognitive operation via generative AI puts nation states vulnerable without proper mitigation strategies. To address this, we compared behavioral and linguistic coordination patterns in X (formerly Twitter) datasets from the 2016 and 2024 U.S. presidential elections. Utilizing a combined corpus of over 133,000 posts, we applied post-type distribution, semantic clustering, temporal synchrony analysis, and Jaccard-based lexical overlap measures. Findings suggest that the 2024 corpus exhibits a distinct pattern from 2016. Original content rose from 59% to 93% with retweets virtually disappeared; lexical overlap collapsed from a mean Jaccard score of 0.99 to 0.27, with posts converging on the same subject matter expressed in markedly different words; and temporal coordination shifted from pervasive cross-semantic synchrony to narratively concentrated co-occurrence. Taken together, these patterns point toward an operational logic organized around active content generation and narrative-specific targeting - characteristics consistent with generative AI involvement. These findings offer an empirical baseline for future research investigating generative AI's role in the cognitive operation pipeline, and as a practical reference point for security practitioners developing detection frameworks calibrated to the post-generative AI threat environment.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent simulation offers a powerful testbed for studying social opinion dynamics. Yet current approaches often adopt two contrasting methods: either relying on fixed update rules with limited cognitive grounding or delegating belief change largely to unconstrained LLM interaction. We introduce ScioMind, a cognitively grounded simulation framework that bridges these paradigms by combining structured opinion dynamics with LLM-based agent reasoning. ScioMind integrates three key components: 1) a memory-anchored belief update rule that modulates susceptibility to influence via personality-conditioned anchoring strength; 2) a hierarchical memory architecture that supports persistent, experience-driven belief formation; and 3) dynamic agent profiles derived from a corpus-grounded retrieval pipeline, enabling heterogeneous personalities, rationales, and evolving internal states. We evaluate ScioMind on multiple case studies in a real-world policy debate scenario. Across metrics including polarisation, diversity, extremization, and trajectory stability, the proposed components consistently yield improvements in behavioural realism. In particular, dynamic profiles increase opinion diversity, memory and reflection reduce unstable oscillation, and anchoring induces persistent belief trajectories that better align with patterns reported in political psychology. These results suggest that our cognitively grounded design provides a novel solution to LLM-based social simulation that improves both stable and behavioural realism

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent political text at scale, raising concerns about synthetic discourse during crises and social conflict. Existing AI-text detection often focuses on sentence-level cues such as perplexity, burstiness, or token irregularities, but these signals may weaken as generative systems improve. We instead adopt a Computational Social Science perspective and ask whether synthetic political discourse behaves like an observed online population. We construct a paired corpus of 1,789,406 posts across nine crisis events: COVID-19, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, Dobbs/Roe v. Wade, the 2020 BLM protests, U.S. midterms, the Utah shooting, and the U.S.-Iran war. For each event, we compare observed discourse from social platforms with synthetic discourse generated for the same context. We evaluate four dimensions: emotional intensity, structural regularity, lexical-ideological framing, and cross-event dependency, using mean gaps and dispersion evidence. Across events, synthetic discourse is fluent but population-level unrealistic. It is generally more negative and less dispersed in sentiment, structurally more regular, and lexically more abstract than observed discourse. Observed discourse instead shows broader emotional variation, longer-tailed structural distributions, and more context-specific, colloquial lexical markers. These differences are event-dependent: larger for fast-moving, decentralized crises and smaller for formal or institutionally mediated events. We summarize them with a simple event-level measure, the Caricature Gap. Our findings suggest that the main limitation of synthetic political discourse is not grammar or fluency, but reduced population realism. Population-level auditing complements traditional text-detection and provides a CSS framework for evaluating the social realism of generated discourse.

What happens when the strongest alliance member pressures a weaker member over territory and strategic control? We examine the Greenland sovereignty crisis as a stress test for LLM geopolitics, centered on the 2019-2026 U.S. push to acquire Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark. The crisis nests two collective-action problems: Arctic strategic control and whether NATO can enforce alliance norms against the dominant member. We develop three games (asymmetric coercion; a NATO assurance game with a critical-mass tipping point; a triadic extensive-form game with social preferences) and test them with a multi-agent simulation in which eight frontier LLMs play six geopolitical roles (United States, Denmark, Greenland, NATO, Russia, Canada) across 3,604 completed games and 108,120 action observations. Using inverse game theory, we recover each model's structural utility parameters (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, eta) for material self-interest, reciprocity, inequality aversion, norm respect, and commitment consistency. Three findings stand out. First, all eight models become more escalatory under coercion framing (four-action escalation rises from 10.7% to 28.6%). Second, Chinese-origin models show systematically different power-weight profiles from Western-origin models when playing the U.S. role. Third, peaceful US acquisition emerges in only 1.9% of clean games and only 3 of 8 frontier models ever achieve it, most prominently DeepSeek V3.2, which executes a stable five-round playbook through the metropole. Prompts emphasizing jus cogens and self-determination reduce escalation back near baseline in the English-only confirmatory sample; multilingual contrasts are reported as exploratory sensitivity checks. We position this as a structural benchmark for LLM geopolitical behavior, complementing action-frequency benchmarks.

Political and social identities structure how people evaluate political information, a finding decades deep in political science and routinely discarded by computational tools that often produce single scores that treat a piece of text, an image, or a video as if it means the same thing to everyone. This paper shows that it does not, and that the difference is consequential. To address this problem, I develop the Perspectivist Visual Political Sentiment (PVPS) classifier, which learns from approximately 82,000 evaluations by 5,575 U.S. adults to predict how audiences defined by political and social identities will evaluate the same image. Unlike standard tools that average systematic disagreement away, PVPS preserves it, returning an evaluative profile that records who agrees, who diverges, and along which identity lines. Applied to several influential studies of visual sentiment, PVPS shows that perceived violence in protest imagery and the emotional mechanisms behind protest image engagement both change substantively once audience identity is taken into account. It follows that what a political image conveys is a moving target, and measuring it requires knowing whom it is moving.

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.

This paper asks whether large language models (LLMs) can be used to study the strategic foundations of conflict and cooperation. I introduce LLMs as experimental subjects in a repeated security dilemma and evaluate whether they reproduce canonical mechanisms from international relations theory. The baseline game is extended along three theoretically central dimensions: multipolarity, finite time horizons, and the availability of communication. Across multiple models, the results exhibit systematic and consistent patterns: multipolarity increases the likelihood of conflict, finite horizons induce universal unraveling consistent with backward-induction logic, and communication reduces conflict by enabling signaling and reciprocity. Beyond observed behavior, the design provides access to agents' private reasoning and public messages, allowing choices to be linked to underlying strategic logics such as preemption, cooperation under uncertainty, and trust-building. The contribution is primarily methodological. LLM-based experiments offer a scalable, transparent, and replicable approach to probing theoretical mechanisms.

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.

In this paper, we present our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6 (CLARITY) on response clarity and evasion detection in question-answer pairs from U.S. presidential interviews, comparing fine-tuned encoders with prompt-based LLMs. Our LLM ensemble achieves 80 macro-F1 on the 3-class Task 1 (9th/41) and 59 on the 9-class Task 2 (3rd/33). Across 8 transformer encoders optimized through a four-stage pipeline, partial encoder layer unfreezing outperforms full fine-tuning by a wide margin. Combining English and multilingual encoders further improves ensemble performance over either family alone, despite multilingual models being individually weaker. Prompt-based LLMs, without any task-specific parameter updates, outperform fine-tuned encoders, particularly on minority classes; among open-weight LLMs, parameter count does not predict performance. Enriched input, concatenating the full interviewer turn, improves LLM performance but not that of encoders, an effect that persists with Longformer's extended context window, suggesting the divergence is not attributable to sequence-length capacity alone in our settings. The Clear Reply/Ambivalent boundary remains the dominant failure mode, mirroring the disagreement among human annotators. Our code, prompts, model configurations, and results are publicly available.

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.

This paper uses game theory to argue that, contrary to the prevailing view, a moratorium on Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) can be in a state's self-interest. By formalizing trategic interactions between geopolitical superpowers, we model the trade-off between the benefits of technological supremacy and the catastrophic risks of uncontrolled ASI. The analysis reveals that as the perceived cost of loss of control increases sufficiently relative to other parameters, it becomes in each state's self-interest to impose a moratorium. We further provide empirical evidence suggesting that the global perception of ASI risk is rising, making a stable, rational moratorium increasingly plausible in the current geopolitical landscape.

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.

Democratic discourse analysis systems increasingly rely on multi-agent LLM pipelines in which distinct evaluator models are assigned adversarial roles to generate structured, multi-perspective assessments of political statements. A core assumption is that models will reliably maintain their assigned roles. This paper provides the first systematic empirical test of that assumption using the TRUST pipeline. We develop an epistemic stance classifier that identifies advocate roles from reasoning text without relying on surface vocabulary, and measure role fidelity across 60 political statements (30 English, 30 German) using four metrics: Role Drift Index (RDI), Expected Drift Distance (EDD), Directional Drift Index (DDI), and Entropy-based Role Stability (ERS). We identify two failure modes - the Epistemic Floor Effect (fact-check results create an absolute lower bound below which the legitimizing role cannot be maintained) and Role-Prior Conflict (training-time knowledge overrides role instructions for factually unambiguous statements) - as manifestations of a single mechanism: Epistemic Role Override (ERO). Model choice significantly affects role fidelity: Mistral Large outperforms Claude Sonnet by 28pp (67% vs. 39%) and exhibits a qualitatively different failure mode - role abandonment without polarity reversal - compared to Claude's active switch to the opposing stance. Role fidelity is language-robust. Fact-check provider choice is not universally neutral: Perplexity significantly reduces Claude's role fidelity on German statements (Delta = -15pp, p = 0.007) while leaving Mistral unaffected. These findings have direct implications for multi-agent LLM validation: a system validated without role fidelity measurement may systematically misrepresent the epistemic diversity it was designed to provide.

Political parties strive to understand their electorates, and focus groups are a vital tool in these efforts. AI-enhanced simulation technologies (AESTs) enable synthetic focus groups in a fraction of the time (and cost), raising the question of when and how such simulated evidence can be used in campaign research. This paper develops a decision matrix to help party strategists match research needs to appropriate simulation technologies and to identify when to escalate to hybrid or fully human focus groups. The matrix combines three dimensions: strategic purpose, deployment risk, and empirical grounding of the simulation tool. Strategic purpose is the decisive dimension, as it determines what kind of evidence the focus group is meant to produce: observing how political meanings and identities emerge through interaction (Mode 1) or testing and refining campaign messages (Mode 2). The matrix shows that, given documented failure modes such as sycophancy, persona drift, and the suppression of minority viewpoints, AESTs cannot replace human interaction in Mode 1 at any risk level. Within Mode 2, suitability depends instead on deployment risk and on the empirical grounding. Yet even here, we caution that routine reliance on AESTs may erode the qualitative craft on which sound judgment depends.

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.

Hundreds of millions of people use artificial intelligence (AI) for writing assistance. Here, we evaluated how AI writing assistance distorts writer personas - their perceived beliefs, personality, and identity. In three large-scale experiments, writers (N=2,939) wrote political opinion paragraphs with and without AI assistance. Separate groups of readers (N=11,091) blindly evaluated these paragraphs across 29 socially salient dimensions of reader perception, spanning political opinion, writing quality, writer personality, emotions, and demographics. AI writing assistance produced persona distortions across all dimensions: with AI, writers seemed more opinionated, competent, and positive, and their perceived demographic profile shifted towards more privileged groups. Writers objected to many of the observed distortions, yet continued to prefer AI-assisted text even when made aware of them. We successfully mitigated objectionable persona distortions at the model level by training reward models on our experimental data (10,008 paragraphs, 2,903,596 ratings) to steer AI outputs towards faithful representation of writer stance. However, this came at a cost to user acceptance, suggesting an entanglement between desirable and undesirable properties of AI writing assistance that may be difficult to resolve. In two follow-up studies (N=8,798), readers placed substantially more trust in AI-assisted writers and were more persuaded by AI writing when AI was more distortive. Together, our findings demonstrate that persona distortions from AI writing assistance are pervasive and persistent even under realistic conditions of human oversight, and that they are likely to have consequential effects on human behaviours and attitudes, which carries implications for public discourse, trust, and democratic deliberation that scale with AI adoption.

Analyses of legislative behavior often rely on voting records, overlooking the rich semantic and rhetorical content of political speech. In this paper, we ask three complementary questions about parliamentary discourse: how things are said, what is being said, and who is speaking in discursively similar ways. To answer these questions, we introduce a scalable and generalizable computational framework that combines diachronic stylometric analysis, contextual topic modeling, and semantic clustering of deputies' speeches. We apply this framework to a large-scale case study of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, using a corpus of over 450,000 speeches from 2003 to 2025. Our results show a long-term stylistic shift toward shorter and more direct speeches, a legislative agenda that reorients sharply in response to national crises, and a granular map of discursive alignments in which regional and gender identities often prove more salient than formal party affiliation. More broadly, this work offers a robust methodology for analyzing parliamentary discourse as a multidimensional phenomenon that complements traditional vote-based approaches.

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.

The pursuit of truth is central to democratic deliberation and governance, yet political discourse reflects varying epistemic orientations, ranging from evidence-based reasoning grounded in verifiable information to intuition-based reasoning rooted in beliefs and subjective interpretation. We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition (EMI) score, derived from large language model (LLM) ratings and embedding-based semantic similarity. Applying this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries, we examine temporal patterns in discourse and its association with deliberative democracy and governance. We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses. EMI is also positively associated with the transparency and predictable implementation of laws as a dimension of governance. These findings suggest that the epistemic nature of political discourse is crucial for both the quality of democracy and governance.

Understanding how policy is debated and justified in parliament is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. However, the volume and complexity of such debates mean that outside audiences struggle to engage. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to enable automated summarisation at scale. While summaries of debates can make parliamentary procedures more accessible, evaluating whether these summaries faithfully communicate argumentative content remains challenging. Existing automated summarisation metrics have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgements of consistency (i.e., faithfulness or alignment between summary and source). In this work, we propose a formal framework for evaluating parliamentary debate summaries that grounds argument structures in the contested proposals up for debate. Our novel approach, driven by computational argumentation, focuses the evaluation on formal properties concerning the faithful preservation of the reasoning presented to justify or oppose policy outcomes. We demonstrate our methods using a case-study of debates from the European Parliament and associated LLM-driven summaries.

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.

(1)Cross-border data transfers have become a matter of daily occurrence against the backdrop of the development of cloud computing and artificial intelligence. Consequently, where a data leak gives rise to civil liability, the determination of that liability inevitably assumes an international dimension involving foreign elements. (2)As is starkly demonstrated by secret sharing technology in cloud computing, fragments of data may be presumed to be distributed across multiple jurisdictions on a global scale. This renders traditional private international law measures -- predicated on the identification of a physical location -- inadequate for the purposes of determining the applicable law, a difficulty that is particularly acute in relation to non-contractual obligations. (3)Bearing in mind the typical scenario encountered in practice -- in which a Data Subject brings a claim for damages against a SaaS (Software as a Service) provider, which in turn seeks recourse against an IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) or PaaS (Platform as a Service) provider -- a characteristic feature of such cases is the concurrence of contractual and non-contractual obligations. Taking this feature into account, it is possible to determine the applicable law governing non-contractual obligations through party autonomy -- by aligning it with the law governing the contractual obligation as selected by the parties, an approach that may be termed private ordering. This serves to overcome the difficulties associated with the identification of a physical location and, at the same time, contributes to ensuring the foreseeability of the parties.

Wales' political landscape has been marked by growing accusations of bias in Welsh media. This paper takes the first computational step toward testing those claims by examining Nation.Cymru, a prominent Welsh political news outlet. I use a two-stage natural language processing (NLP) pipeline: (1) a robustly optimized BERT approach (RoBERTa) bias detector for efficient bias discovery and (2) a large language model (LLM) for target-attributed sentiment classification of bias labels from (1). A primary analysis of 15,583 party mentions across 2022-2026 news articles finds that Reform UK attracts biased framing at twice the rate of Plaid Cymru and over three times as negative in mean sentiment (p<0.001). A secondary analysis across four parties across both news and opinion articles shows that Plaid Cymru is the outlier, receiving markedly more favourable framing than any other party. These findings provide evidence of measurable differential framing in a single Welsh political media outlet, supporting calls for a broader review of Welsh media coverage. Furthermore, the two-stage pipeline offers a low-cost, replicable framework for extending this analysis to other Welsh outlets, as well as media ecosystems outside of Wales.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in general-domain tasks, yet their direct application to the legal domain remains challenging due to hallucinated legal citations, incomplete knowledge coverage, and weak structured reasoning. To address these issues, we propose PoliLegalLM, a domain-specific large language model tailored for political and legal applications. Our approach adopts a unified training framework that integrates continued pretraining, progressive supervised fine-tuning, and preference-based reinforcement learning to jointly enhance legal knowledge grounding, task alignment, and reasoning capability. We construct a large-scale, high-quality legal corpus and design a structured post-training pipeline, enabling the model to effectively learn domain-specific knowledge and adapt to diverse legal tasks. We evaluate PoliLegalLM on three representative benchmarks, including LawBench, LexEval, and a real-world dataset, PoliLegal. Experimental results demonstrate that PoliLegalLM achieves strong and consistent performance, outperforming competitive models of similar scale and remaining highly competitive with significantly larger models, while achieving the best results on real-world legal scenarios. These results highlight the effectiveness of our training paradigm and the practical value of domain-specific LLMs for real-world legal applications.