Assessing the impacts of social policy changes is a widely acknowledged challenge for policymakers. Econometric methods can be unreliable when extrapolating to hypothetical scenarios, while field pilot programs are highly costly. In this paper, we propose using large language models (LLMs) as policy-assessment tools adapted from general-purpose models. We present FlexPension-LLM, the first domain-specialized large language model for a hierarchical pension-enrollment prediction task among flexible workers in China, and introduce DKI-RDistill, which injects policy-grounded cues into the prompt, including Probit-derived marginal effects and hukou-province pension rules. The method then uses LoRA/SFT to distill rationale-augmented supervision into an open-weight MoE student, with teacher errors corrected by regenerating those cases under ground-truth labels. On a CHFS 2019 blind split, FlexPension-LLM achieves 0.9316 Composite F1, surpassing its Claude Sonnet 4.5 teacher and 15 of 17 baselines, and is statistically indistinguishable from Claude Opus 4.6. Across four external surveys, it averages 0.7549 Composite F1 and shows the narrowest performance range among the strongest systems. Component analysis shows that gains come mainly from policy-grounded cue injection and error-filtered supervision, while rationales provide decision traces that can be checked against policy rules.
Large language models (LLM) agents may offer tools to predict human responses to surveys. A common technique for defining these agents uses only demographics, for example country, age, gender, employment status, income, education and marital status. We compare the predictive accuracy of demographic agents to that of survey agents defined with a larger set of in-domain survey responses. We test both approaches in predicting responses to the multidisciplinary, cross-national Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), focusing on five variables from three policy-relevant constructs around personal finance. In these three constructs, we observe that, compared to survey agents trained on broader data, demographics-only agents (1) exhibited a central tendency bias, skewing answers toward population means, and (2) were unrealistically accurate, failing to reproduce the incorrect answers and "don't know" responses typical of human respondents. These performance differences are further substantiated through the replication of a hierarchical regression analysis from prior retirement planning research. Agents based solely on demographic information reproduce the outcome that financial risk tolerance, future time perspective, and knowledge of retirement planning each are predictive of retirement savings. However, only the survey-anchored agents succeed in reproducing the interaction among these three factors. These findings suggest caution in using only demographics to define LLM agents for predicting survey responses.
LLM agents operating under organizational policies must comply with authorization constraints typically specified in natural language. In practice, such specifications inevitably contain ambiguities and logical or semantic gaps that cause the agent's behavior to systematically diverge from the true requirements. We ask: by letting an agent evolve its policy understanding through interaction and corrective feedback from pre-deployment testing, can it autonomously refine its interpretation to close specification gaps? We propose PolicyBank, a memory mechanism that maintains structured, tool-level policy insights and iteratively refines them -- unlike existing memory mechanisms that treat the policy as immutable ground truth, reinforcing "compliant but wrong" behaviors. We also contribute a systematic testbed by extending a popular tool-calling benchmark with controlled policy gaps that isolate alignment failures from execution failures. While existing memory mechanisms achieve near-zero success on policy-gap scenarios, PolicyBank closes up to 82% of the gap toward a human oracle.
Conversational assistants powered by large language models (LLMs) excel at tool-use tasks but struggle with adhering to complex, business-specific rules. While models can reason over business rules provided in context, including all policies for every query introduces high latency and wastes compute. Furthermore, these lengthy prompts lead to long contexts, harming overall performance due to the 'needle-in-a-haystack' problem. To address these challenges, we propose a multi-stage alignment method that teaches models to recall and apply relevant business policies during chain-of-thought reasoning at inference time, without including the full business policy in-context. Furthermore, we introduce a novel Policy Recall reward based on the Jaccard score and a Hallucination Penalty for GRPO training. Altogether, our best model outperforms the baseline by 16 points and surpasses comparable in-context baselines of similar model size by 3 points, while using 40% fewer words.