We're Cooked! - Probing LLM Political Alignment Via Conflict-Framed Recipe Translation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07568v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 14:46:42 GMT
• Title: We're Cooked! - Probing LLM Political Alignment Via Conflict-Framed Recipe Translation
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for translation tasks, yet their implicit political positioning in such contexts remains understudied.<n>We ask whether a single politically charged framing term, such as aggressor, enemy, neighbour, or coloniser, is sufficient to trigger implicit political alignment in an otherwise apolitical task.<n>Our findings urge caution when deploying LLMs for translation in conflict-adjacent contexts, where implicit political judgments may be made without any signal to the user.
• Score: 4.372645928060847
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for translation tasks, yet their implicit political positioning in such contexts remains understudied. We ask whether a single politically charged framing term, such as aggressor, enemy, neighbour, or coloniser is sufficient to trigger implicit political alignment in an otherwise apolitical task. We present a fully crossed factorial study in which eight models spanning Western, Chinese, and European origins are prompted to translate culturally attributed recipes into a target language left deliberately unspecified. Across 17 languages, four framing conditions, eight models, and 15,680 responses, we find that models do not simply decline or ask for clarification but resolve the ambiguity. Language resolution and reasoning behavior cluster meaningfully along model families: Western models hedge and deflect with vague justifications, Chinese models resolve conflicts silently, and Mistral Large emerges as a distinct profile combining high compliance with conflict-grounded reasoning. Sensitivity to framing terms is consistent across models: even subtle framing variation is sufficient to modulate behavior. Our findings urge caution when deploying LLMs for translation in conflict-adjacent contexts, where implicit political judgments may be made without any signal to the user.

Related papers

• Right Frame, Wrong Rule: Cultural Cues Expose the Financial Knowledge Gap They Were Meant to Close [57.963463622270275]
  We study normative pluralism in Islamic finance using a four-choice taxonomy.<n>A cultural cue steers a model toward one framework, but the model selects an incorrect answer within that framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T09:46:53Z)
• Poli-Bias: Understanding and Measuring Large Language Model Biases in International Political Conflicts [33.852036995882465]
  Poli-Bias is a framework for measuring whether large language models treat legally equivalent conflict scenarios differently depending on the countries involved.<n>We find that country identities and user affiliations can systematically affect how equivalent actions are described, evaluated, and defended under international law.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T14:54:30Z)
• Inference-Time Steering for Cross-Lingual Factual Consistency in LLMs [51.56484100374058]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, but their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages.<n>We investigate whether these biases can be mitigated at inference time, forcing an English-prompted model to answer as if it were queried in target languages.<n>Experiments on Gemma 3 12B Instruct reveal persona prompting to be the strongest overall intervention, balancing efficacy, safety, and out-of-domain generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T16:15:05Z)
• LLM-Ideoplasticity: Measuring Ideological Plasticity in the Political Behavior of LLMs as a Context-Conditioned Distribution [2.464003792743989]
  We argue that a large language model's political ideology is not a fixed point, but a conditional distribution over a real political space.<n>We evaluate nine current LLMs using a unified measurement framework anchored by VAA-CHES projection models.<n>Our findings reveal high sensitivity to context: persuasive framing displaces coordinates by up to 0.57 and 0.52 units, respectively, while chain-of-thought reasoning often amplifies rather than dampens paraphrase instability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T17:01:07Z)
• Mitigating Cross-Lingual Cultural Inconsistencies in LLMs via Consensus-Driven Preference Optimisation [58.01855677487771]
  We show that multilingual large language models (MLLMs) frequently exhibit inconsistent behaviour when the prompt's language changes.<n>We propose Cross-lingual Cultural Consistent Preference optimisation (C-3PO), a consensus-driven alignment framework.<n>C-3PO achieves up to a 0.10-point absolute increase in $_S$ over unaligned models, outperforming strong prompting and representation steering baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T14:04:06Z)
• Bilingual Bias in Large Language Models: A Taiwan Sovereignty Benchmark Study [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multilingual contexts, yet their consistency across languages on politically sensitive topics remains understudied.<n>This paper presents a systematic benchmark study examining how 17 LLMs respond to questions concerning the sovereignty of the Republic of China (Taiwan) when queried in Chinese versus English.<n>We discover significant language bias -- the phenomenon where the same model produces substantively different political stances depending on the query language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T03:57:21Z)
• Measuring Political Stance and Consistency in Large Language Models [1.1296803881058548]
  We assess the stances of nine Large Language Models on 24 politically sensitive issues using five prompting techniques.<n>We find that models often adopt opposing stances on several issues; some positions are malleable under prompting, while others remain stable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T06:12:40Z)
• Language Mixing in Reasoning Language Models: Patterns, Impact, and Internal Causes [54.96891982093408]
  Reasoning language models (RLMs) excel at complex tasks by leveraging a chain-of-thought process to generate structured intermediate steps.<n> Language mixing, i.e., reasoning steps containing tokens from languages other than the prompt, has been observed in their outputs and shown to affect performance.<n>We present the first systematic study of language mixing in RLMs, examining its patterns, impact, and internal causes across 15 languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T18:26:53Z)
• Mapping Geopolitical Bias in 11 Large Language Models: A Bilingual, Dual-Framing Analysis of U.S.-China Tensions [2.8202443616982884]
  This study systematically analyzes geopolitical bias across 11 prominent Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We generated 19,712 prompts designed to detect ideological leanings in model outputs.<n>U.S.-based models predominantly favored Pro-U.S. stances, while Chinese-origin models exhibited pronounced Pro-China biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T03:38:17Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• This Land is {Your, My} Land: Evaluating Geopolitical Biases in Language Models [40.61046400448044]
  We show that large language models (LLM) recall certain geographical knowledge inconsistently when queried in different languages. As a targeted case study, we consider territorial disputes, an inherently controversial and multilingual task. We propose a suite of evaluation metrics to precisely quantify bias and consistency in responses across different languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T01:16:17Z)
• Provable Limitations of Acquiring Meaning from Ungrounded Form: What will Future Language Models Understand? [87.20342701232869]
  We investigate the abilities of ungrounded systems to acquire meaning. We study whether assertions enable a system to emulate representations preserving semantic relations like equivalence. We find that assertions enable semantic emulation if all expressions in the language are referentially transparent. However, if the language uses non-transparent patterns like variable binding, we show that emulation can become an uncomputable problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-22T01:00:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.