PolicyLLM: Towards Excellent Comprehension of Public Policy for Large Language Models

Science, technology, and innovation policies are crucial for competitiveness, yet their diversity and scale make them difficult to map and monitor consistently. Existing approaches rely heavily on manual survey efforts, which are costly and challenging to scale across countries. Large language models (LLMs) enable new possibilities for extracting and structuring information from long and unstructured policy documents. This paper presents an application of LLMs as "AI respondents" for generating structured survey responses from policy texts. We develop a data extraction pipeline based on long-context in-context learning to map information from public web sources into predefined survey categories, including policy instruments, target groups, and thematic areas. The pipeline integrates a validation step using a secondary LLM to assess relevance and evidence, alongside comparisons with human-provided responses. Using a multi-country dataset, we evaluate the alignment between LLM-generated and human-generated outputs through overlap measures and cross-validation. Results show that LLMs achieve high agreement for structured indicators (84-95%), while differences remain in free-text fields, where models tend to provide more detailed procedural descriptions. These findings highlight the potential of hybrid human-AI workflows for policy monitoring, improving both efficiency and scalability while maintaining the need for human validation and contextual interpretation.

Organizations increasingly use LLMs for policy, compliance, risk, and operational decision support, requiring evidence validation, review routing, version control, and auditability. We introduce Policy-as-Skill (PaS), a modular runtime that packages these functions as executable, versioned policy capabilities. Thirteen methods are evaluated with a fixed Gemma4 backend on 600 development tasks. PaS+Audit achieves 53.8% exact accuracy, macro-F1 0.346, review F1 0.854, citation precision 1.000, policy-reference recall 0.984, and audit completeness 1.000, outperforming LLM+RAG on most governance and review metrics. Deterministic control raises aggregate accuracy to 61.2% but is strongly task dependent, supporting selective rather than universal rule-based intervention.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity. Existing benchmarks of LLM social bias primarily evaluate demographic stereotypes, and when political bias is measured, it is done so at a coarse level, overlooking the values that shape sociopolitical reasoning. We introduce PoliticsBench, a multi-stage roleplay benchmark for evaluating fine-grained value expression in LLMs. Across twenty evolving scenarios, models articulate tradeoffs, take positions, and make decisions under competing pressures. Across eight prominent LLMs, we show that scenario-based prompting elicits broader and more strongly expressed value profiles than direct political questions, with peak interaction stages increasing the number of strongly activated value dimensions by approximately $0.75$ (out of 10 total dimensions), a statistically significant increase relative to baseline prompting ($p < 0.05$). In addition, commitment to a stance increases over the course of interaction, rising by approximately $1.4$ points on a $[0,5]$ scale from initial to decision stages. While responses become less robust to scenario paraphrasing in later interaction stages, inter-judge agreement remains relatively stable. Our results suggest that evaluating LLM political behavior requires moving beyond static prompts toward longer interactive settings that capture how values are applied in context.