Which Institutional Frameworks Do Chatbots Assume? Auditing Jurisdictional Defaults in Multilingual LLMs
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866914619589656576 |
|---|---|
| author | Wang, Zhizhi Suresh, Harini |
| author_facet | Wang, Zhizhi Suresh, Harini |
| contents | LLMs increasingly answer questions about taxes, labor protections, healthcare, education, pensions, and administrative procedures, where usefulness often depends on the applicable jurisdiction. Multilingual users may write in their most comfortable language rather than one associated with the country or region whose rules apply. We ask whether deployed LLMs use input language as a default jurisdictional signal when prompts omit any country or region. Prior multilingual audits show that prompt language can shift cultural, political, or normative outputs; we examine which legal-administrative framework models supply when jurisdiction is underspecified. We evaluate seven LLMs developed in the United States or China on 60 underspecified legal-administrative prompts in English and Mandarin Chinese under three system-prompt conditions, yielding 2,520 manually annotated responses. Across models and conditions, Chinese input more often produces China-specific answers, while English input more often produces U.S.-specific, comparative, or generic answers. Prompts requiring a single answer further increase jurisdiction selection: pooled across models, 74.5% of English-input responses adopt a U.S. framework, while 53.3% of Chinese-input responses adopt a China framework. This directional pattern appears in all seven models. We describe this deployment-level pattern as institutional-framework misselection risk: a fluent answer may rely on a legal-administrative context the user did not intend, especially when their preferred language differs from the relevant jurisdiction. LLM interfaces should not route institutional advice by input language alone; when location is absent, they should request it or state the jurisdictional scope of the answer. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2606_00333 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Which Institutional Frameworks Do Chatbots Assume? Auditing Jurisdictional Defaults in Multilingual LLMs Wang, Zhizhi Suresh, Harini Computation and Language LLMs increasingly answer questions about taxes, labor protections, healthcare, education, pensions, and administrative procedures, where usefulness often depends on the applicable jurisdiction. Multilingual users may write in their most comfortable language rather than one associated with the country or region whose rules apply. We ask whether deployed LLMs use input language as a default jurisdictional signal when prompts omit any country or region. Prior multilingual audits show that prompt language can shift cultural, political, or normative outputs; we examine which legal-administrative framework models supply when jurisdiction is underspecified. We evaluate seven LLMs developed in the United States or China on 60 underspecified legal-administrative prompts in English and Mandarin Chinese under three system-prompt conditions, yielding 2,520 manually annotated responses. Across models and conditions, Chinese input more often produces China-specific answers, while English input more often produces U.S.-specific, comparative, or generic answers. Prompts requiring a single answer further increase jurisdiction selection: pooled across models, 74.5% of English-input responses adopt a U.S. framework, while 53.3% of Chinese-input responses adopt a China framework. This directional pattern appears in all seven models. We describe this deployment-level pattern as institutional-framework misselection risk: a fluent answer may rely on a legal-administrative context the user did not intend, especially when their preferred language differs from the relevant jurisdiction. LLM interfaces should not route institutional advice by input language alone; when location is absent, they should request it or state the jurisdictional scope of the answer. |
| title | Which Institutional Frameworks Do Chatbots Assume? Auditing Jurisdictional Defaults in Multilingual LLMs |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00333 |