Enhancing LLMs in Predictive Political QA with Semi-Structured Data

Approximating the ideological position of Members of Parliament (MPs) is a fundamental task in political science, helping researchers understand legislative behavior, party alignment, and policy preferences. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in estimating MPs' ideological stances, there are more actors and elements in the parliamentary system, and relations between them, that could provide a wider and more informative picture. However, due to the complexity of integrating them in the prediction task, these additional elements are generally ignored. In this work, we propose an LLM framework, PG-RAG, that implements a retrieval-augmented generation pipeline: it first queries a political knowledge graph (KG) and then integrates the resulting graph-structured information into the context. This allows for capturing both textual semantics and inter-MP relationships, another relevant information source in any parliamentary system. We evaluate the approach on the task of ideology prediction, using data from a Swiss parliamentary dataset. When comparing graph-augmented models against several state-of-the-art baselines, the results demonstrate that incorporating this enriched information, which encodes information about different entities and relations, improves prediction performance. These results help to highlight the value of domain-specific relational information in modeling political behavior.

As users increasingly turn to Large Language Models (LLMs) for information and advice on political matters, particularly during election periods, the political preferences expressed by these systems have become a matter of public interest. Prior research has shown that interactions with LLMs can influence users' political attitudes and choices, raising questions about how these models themselves evaluate political actors. In this paper, we investigate whether and how LLMs express preferences toward political parties and political leaders. We introduce a systematic and reproducible auditing framework in which multiple LLMs are prompted to evaluate parties and leaders across nine criteria. Rather than attempting to infer the models' "true" political beliefs, we focus on their observable behavior, examining consistency across evaluations, differences between models, refusal rates, and sensitivity to prompt formulation. We further investigate how these evaluations vary when models are instructed to adopt different personas. We demonstrate the framework through an Italian case study, providing a systematic analysis of LLM-generated political evaluations on italian parties and leaders.

As LLMs increasingly shape the political information citizens rely on, no standard exists to assess whether they do so responsibly. We introduce Polistemics, a theory-grounded diagnostic benchmark for evaluating LLMs as mediators of political information in elections. Prior work has treated this task as reproduction rather than mediation, leaving its epistemic dimensions and interaction with imperfect information unaddressed. We ground the evaluation in Epistemic Modesty, a normative standard derived from citizens' epistemic agency, and test it across controlled settings that vary the clarity, noise, and consistency of the available evidence. Applying the benchmark to three state-of-the-art LLMs across the 2025 German and Dutch elections, we find that high aggregate scores mask systematic failures. Models mediate reliably under clear evidence but break down when it is absent, vague, or contradictory, while flattening the intensity of political language throughout. These failures point to party priors, shifting with party labels and output language. Reliable mediation appears achievable, but no model delivers it consistently.