From Policy Documents to Structured Survey Responses: Evaluating Large Language Models for Policy Monitoring

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.

Survey research faces mounting structural challenges: declining response rates, sample bias, block-wise missingness among at-risk respondents, and AI-assisted fraudulent completions in online panels. Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as a remedy, yet rigorous evaluations across the full survey workflow remain scarce, particularly in disaster contexts where data quality matters most. We present and evaluate a five-stage framework for LLM integration covering questionnaire design, sample selection, pilot testing, missing-data imputation, and post-collection analysis, using the 2024 Hurricane Milton preparedness survey of Florida residents (n=946) as a shared empirical testbed. We introduce a Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-constrained co-occurrence knowledge graph and develop seven LLM configurations spanning zero-shot inference, retrieval-augmented baselines, and novel theory-informed variants. Our proposed Anchored Marginal Theory-Informed LLM (A-TLM) outperforms all three classical imputation baselines (IPW/MI, MICE+PMM, missForest) on RMSE under disaster-relevant block-wise MNAR conditions (S4 RMSE 1.439 vs. 1.496 for the next-best), while achieving near-zero signed bias (-0.121) where the random-forest imputer produces the largest absolute bias (-0.631). Organizing retrieval around PMT causal structure and integrating all evidence in a single model call outperforms unstructured retrieval and staged sequential inference (MAE 0.993 vs. 1.097 for standard RAG). We document that near-zero aggregate bias can mask opposing subgroup errors and propose subgroup-stratified bias auditing as a reporting standard. A retrieval-constrained knowledge-graph chatbot demonstrates that hallucination is architecturally manageable through grounded refusal.

Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric. In this work, we introduce Poli-Bias, a counterfactual framework for measuring whether LLMs treat legally equivalent conflict scenarios differently depending on the countries involved. Poli-Bias compares responses to paired prompts in which country identities are systematically swapped across diverse geopolitical relationships, legal violations, and reasoning tasks. Rather than reducing bias to a single judgment, our framework decomposes response disparities into five interpretable dimensions, revealing how and where unequal treatment manifests. Across 13 contemporary LLMs spanning diverse model families and sizes, we find that country identities and user affiliations can systematically affect how equivalent actions are described, evaluated, and defended under international law. Our results thus establish Poli-Bias as a fine-grained framework for auditing political even-handedness and sycophancy in LLMs.