aiqbench analysis
This study empirically demonstrates that large language models do not hold fixed political ideologies but instead exhibit significant plasticity, shifting their positions based on context, framing, and language choice. While these local shifts are substantial, the collective behavior of current model cohorts remains constrained within a narrow ideological range compared to real-world European parties. The research provides essential methodological tools for characterizing AI alignment risks through multi-dimensional distributions rather than single-point summaries.
LLM-Ideoplasticity: Measuring Ideological Plasticity in the Political Behavior of LLMs as a Context-Conditioned Distribution
arXiv:2606.28335v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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 this https URL.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2606.28335 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2606.28335v2 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.28335 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 248 words
Related coverage

The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 14, 2026
Does ChatGPT really have a strong left-wing bias?
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
Current AIs out-persuade professionals in lab settings but (probably) not in the world
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026