Auditing Political Alignment in LLM Assistants: Engagement, Stance, and User Identity
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2609.23039 (cs)
[Submitted on 19 Sep 2026]
Title:Auditing Political Alignment in LLM Assistants: Engagement, Stance, and User Identity
Authors:Joan C. Timoneda
View a PDF of the paper titled Auditing Political Alignment in LLM Assistants: Engagement, Stance, and User Identity, by Joan C. Timoneda
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:LLM-based AI systems answer political questions for hundreds of millions of people. Current audits measure what they say to an average user, but their behavior is dynamic. I argue that their political behavior is a set of policies over whom to answer, what to say, and whether to engage at all, conditional on the topic and what the system knows about the user. I call these policies the system's speech regime, which is how a developer settles the tradeoff between answering, accommodating the user, and refusing, each of which carries a cost that varies by topic. I derive a typology of five regimes from two dimensions, engagement and stance. I test six AI systems (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Google, Mistral, DeepSeek) in a preregistered experiment of 7,500 multi-turn conversations that randomly assign the user's political identity across five topics: abortion, Catalan independence, climate change, Nazism, and a zero-stakes control (pineapple on pizza). Two LLM judges from different developers score every answer, validated against human coding, and refusal is treated as an outcome rather than missing data. Every system accommodates the user on the control topic, showing that political restraint is a policy. On contested topics the systems fall into different regimes: on abortion, GPT engages and mirrors every user, Gemma refuses everyone, Claude answers strongly conservative users 35 percent of the time and almost no one else, and Grok accommodates conservatives only. On settled topics such as climate change and Nazism, five systems hold firm for every user. The systems also infer the user's overall ideology, so accommodation can spill over to topics not yet discussed. A comparison of two Grok releases shows the regime changing between versions in a way current audits miss. Speech regimes matter for alignment research and for polarization, political knowledge, and the quality of democracy.
| Comments: | 51 pages, 6 figures. Preregistered; registration at doi:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21135155 |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY) |
| ACM classes: | I.2.7; K.4.1 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.23039 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2609.23039v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23039
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Submission history
From: Joan C. Timoneda [view email][v1] Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:15:43 UTC (2,297 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Auditing Political Alignment in LLM Assistants: Engagement, Stance, and User Identity, by Joan C. Timoneda
Current browse context:
cs.CL
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
A Mechanistic Study of AI-Text Detection Neurons in Frozen BERT: Sparse Probing and Activation Patching on RAID
Sep 28
-
Manifold Projection and Iterative Autoencoder Refinement for Masked Language Modeling
Sep 28
-
Not All Memories Are Equal: Hierarchical Collaborative Memory for Validity-Aware Retrieval in LLM Agents
Sep 28
-
Auditing and Repairing LLM-as-Judge Failures in a Production Text-to-SQL Pipeline
Sep 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.