Political Discourse

People increasingly turn to AI chatbots for news and explanations of world events. But do they receive the same political answers when they ask in different languages? Here we show that the language of a question can change how the same AI systems assess the war in Ukraine. We ask GPT, Claude and Gemini to evaluate twenty statements about the war in 112 languages, collecting 67,200 responses. The balance between Russia-leaning and Ukraine-leaning responses differs across languages. When we group responses by countries' official languages, they follow a pattern resembling worldwide political divisions: relatively more Russia-leaning answers correspond to more favourable public views of Russia, less support for Ukraine in United Nations votes, and less aid to Ukraine. The broad pattern recurs across all three models and remains when individual statement pairs are removed. Our findings suggest a possible route through which information warfare may shape the text used to train AI models, which may in turn spread geopolitical biases.

The analysis of US political language is usually based on the written form (e.g. presidential addresses) or posts broadcasted on various social networks. Oral production, however, which is even more frequent, can better reveal the style and mode of thinking of the speaker. This study covers this mode of linguistic communication by considering 19 candidates from the presidential elections between 1960 to 2024. Our main research objectives are to disclose the main trends hidden in those presidential debates. Do we observe a clear simplification of the US political language over time? Does Trump have poor language compared to the other candidates? Do unusual stylistic features occur only with a single, specific president? Moreover, can we detect a pattern explaining the success or failure of some nominees? Over time, this study demonstrates a significant reduction in political language complexity, a decrease of the mean sentence length, and a noteworthy decline of complex terms. Moreover, the emotional tone increases over the decades, while logical and rational thinking tends to lessen.

This study explores the vocabulary richness of oral political communication. A model explaining the lexicon growth is proposed by subdividing the whole vocabulary into terms generated by general and specialized glossaries.

Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM personas simulate public opinion at scale. Current evaluations test only whether personas hold the right opinions -- a static snapshot. But opinion research increasingly depends on dynamic fidelity: whether personas update beliefs in response to new arguments, as humans do during deliberation. No existing benchmark tests this. We introduce the Deliberative Polling Diagnostic Framework, which compares human and LLM belief shifts after identical informational interventions. Grounded in deliberative polling, it surfaces failures invisible to static evaluation: models that produce plausible partisan opinions can still misrepresent how those opinions change. Applying the framework to five frontier models using data from America in One Room (526 personas, 72 questions), we find that every model fails, each in a unique manner. GPT-5.1 exhibits reversal: its personas become more hostile toward the opposing party after balanced information, while humans become less so. This reversal is selective (80% on outgroup vs. 26% on policy questions) and symmetric across partisan identities. Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Llama 3.3 70B exhibit overshoot, shifting correctly but at 5-7x human magnitude. DeepSeek V3 exhibits rigidity with near-zero change. Targeted ablations reveal that policy content triggers these failures and that they are identity-specific: GPT-5.1 reverses on outgroup questions but overshoots on ingroup; Gemini shows the inverse. We term this signature self-sycophancy: conformity to the model's internal stereotype of the persona rather than reasoning from the information provided. Our framework offers a concrete protocol: run the deliberative diagnostic before trusting LLM personas to mimic revised beliefs.

Social media platforms have become central to shaping political discourse, serving as arenas where narratives form and evolve, influencing public opinion. Identifying and analyzing these narratives, particularly when they compete across different political ideologies, is crucial for understanding the dynamics of modern political communication. This paper presents an unsupervised framework for identifying and characterizing competing narratives in political discourse on social media, focusing on German politicians' tweets. The framework employs a multi-stage pipeline that integrates natural language processing techniques such as topic modeling, event detection, and event linking. By forming data into coherent stories and uncovering the distinct perspectives of user communities, the system is able to detect the key competing narratives, highlighting the divergent framings and conflicts surrounding trending political topics. Two case studies on polarizing political issues demonstrate the efficacy of the methodology, showcasing its ability to uncover and analyze divergent viewpoints. The findings contribute to the broader understanding of how narratives propagate within the digital public sphere and offer insights for policymakers, social media platforms, and researchers interested in monitoring political discourse.

Truth and evidence-based communication provide important foundations for democratic governance, accountability, and collective decision-making. Prior work shows that evidence-oriented language in US congressional floor speeches has declined since the mid-1970s, alongside broader changes in legislative productivity and polarization. This study shifts the analysis from congressional sessions to individual members of Congress to examine whether epistemic orientation varies systematically across legislators and whether it relates to political behavior and legislative effectiveness. Using the Evidence-Minus-Intuition (EMI) score, we measure the relative prevalence of evidence-oriented versus intuition-oriented language in congressional floor speeches and Twitter posts. We link these measures to legislator-level data on ideology, institutional position, communication context, and Legislative Effectiveness Score (LES). The results show that more ideologically extreme members use less evidence-oriented language on the congressional floor. EMI also exhibits cross-platform consistency with members who use more evidence-oriented language in floor speeches also being more evidence-oriented on Twitter, although EMI is lower on Twitter overall. Finally, EMI in congressional speeches is positively associated with individual legislative effectiveness, even after accounting for ideology and extensive political, institutional, demographic, topical, and communication volume controls. These findings suggest that evidence-oriented language is not only an aggregate feature of congressional discourse but also a meaningful attribute of individual-level legislative communication and effectiveness.

Emotions are a pervasive feature of political communication, yet existing research has focused primarily on describing patterns of emotional expression rather than examining whether they are associated with consequential legislative outcomes. We address this gap by investigating the expression and correlates of discrete emotions in more than 1.7 million speeches delivered in the U.S. Congress between 1973 and 2024. Using a transformer-based emotion classifier, we measure eight discrete emotions: anger, fear, disgust, sadness, joy, enthusiasm, pride, and hope. We examine how these emotions vary over time, across policy topics, legislator characteristics, and their relationship with legislative effectiveness. We find that congressional speeches are becoming emotionally expressive over time. Emotional expression also varies systematically across policy domains and ideological positioning of legislators. Notably, the relationship between emotional expression and legislative effectiveness depends on the specific emotions expressed: enthusiasm and pride are positively associated with effectiveness, whereas anger exhibits a negative association. Emotional valence and emotional diversity are positively associated with legislative effectiveness, while emotional intensity is negatively associated with legislative effectiveness. These findings demonstrate that computationally derived measures of discrete emotions can provide insight into affective dimensions of legislative speeches and facilitate our understanding of how legislators communicate, interact, and perform within democratic institutions.

Political debates are often analyzed through Argument Mining (AM) to investigate the key arguments that drive them. However, political arguments are rarely interpretable from argumentative spans alone, as claims and premises generally depend on the entities (e.g., people, events, locations, parties) they mention. Existing AM resources and methods typically annotate argumentative spans and roles, but do not provide a paired debate-entity layer for asking which Debate Named Entities (DNE), e.g., actors and events, are invoked within debates. In this work, we address these data and methodological gaps by (i) introducing DNE-ElecDeb, an entity-enriched version of the USElecDeb dataset that adds DNEs in both argumentative and non-argumentative spans and defines Debate Named Entity Recognition (DNER) as the task of detecting DNEs, and (ii) proposing Joint Argument and Entity Tagging (JAET), a generative framework that fine-tunes decoder-only LLMs to insert inline argument and entity tags into debate turns while preserving the original transcript. Under BIO-tagging evaluation, JAET improves relative F1 on the joint AM+DNER task by +27.3%, resp. +41.9%, under the untyped, resp. typed setting over the strongest sequential AM-DNER pipelines, demonstrating that such gains cannot be recovered by composing two independent modules. Notably, similar margins replicate on Persuasive Essays (+26.6%, resp. +52.7%), showing effective generalization to domains orthogonal to political debates. By unifying argumentative and entity-level representations within a single view, our contributions pave the way for richer political debates understanding.

Political texts are rarely authored by the nominal speaker alone. Tweets, speeches, reports, and official statements are drafted, edited, or harmonized by staff, yet political science has paid limited attention to the stylistic traces these hidden authors leave behind. This paper develops and stress-tests an inductive stylometric approach for recovering latent authorship structure in political communication, combining character 3-gram features with UMAP dimensionality reduction, and Burrows' Delta. We apply the approach to six corpora that vary in length (from tweets to long documents), in mode (written and oral), and in language (English and Hungarian). The approach recovers near-disjoint analyst fingerprints in formal legal prose in both languages, sorts a politician's tweets into validated subsets while uncovering additional insights, and distinguishes scripted from improvised speech. It fails, however, to resolve individual speechwriters within scripted corpora. Frequency-based stylometry is thus a powerful tool that, depending on authorial signal strength and institutional editing, can uncover authorship traces relevant to legislative studies, political communication, and policy research.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly becoming an interface between citizens and political information. They are often regarded as "a better Google." While this analogy might work for some instances, it is unintuitively problematic for democratic politics. A search engine retrieves human-authored documents, while a language model generates novel text that necessarily embeds invisible framing decisions. Because conveying knowledge involves framing, a system that generates answers cannot serve as a neutral conduit to "all human knowledge." Instead, these systems are becoming a new kind of political intermediary. Mechanistic evidence shows that partisan identity is encoded as a locatable geometric direction inside the Llama 3.1 8B model, and that alignment training masks rather than removes this structure. Building on that evidence, we present steering experiments that exploit a model's training cutoff in 2024. This cutpoint auspiciously falls just before a dramatic realignment in American politics marked by the second Trump administration and the MAHA transformation of health politics, providing us with a natural experiment. We find that the model presents temporally contingent partisan alignments as knowledge, with no mechanism for distinguishing fact from opinion. This reality moves the information environment beyond the echo chamber toward an epistemic monoculture where language models, purporting to summarize "all human knowledge" are, in actuality, simply magnifying the cultural and partisan divides inherent in their training data.

We present three large-scale studies of spoken parliamentary speech across four Slavic languages (Croatian, Czech, Polish, Serbian), drawing on over 6,000 hours from the ParlaSpeech 3.0 corpus. The first study examines how utterance-level sentiment shapes acoustic realisation: negative speech is consistently produced with higher pitch, greater intensity, and faster rate across all four parliaments, with a secondary arousal-driven upturn at the most positive extreme. The second study models filled pause frequency using negative binomial GEE, finding that speech rate, age, and sentiment are robust cross-lingual predictors, while gender effects reverse between South Slavic (men produce fewer filled pauses) and West Slavic parliaments (no gender difference) - a pattern invisible to single-language designs. The third study investigates primary stress variation in Croatian, showing that speaker-level preferences for early versus late stress cohere across verbs, adjectives, and nouns but decouple for adverbs and proper nouns. We conclude with a research agenda spanning corpus phonetics, disfluency modelling, and political rhetoric.

AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation. As agents exchange information and jointly make decisions, their interactions can improve collective reasoning but may also produce herding, polarization, or amplify shared biases. Understanding and predicting these collective dynamics is therefore important for designing effective and aligned multi-agent systems. Here, we study over 10,000 communities of language-model agents that repeatedly exchange messages and revise their opinions across objective mathematics questions and subjective political statements. Despite substantial diversity in possible behavior, the individual and group dynamics can be represented by three characteristic regimes: indifference, polarization, and consensus. AI agents start indifferent and build conviction as they interact. On objective questions, communication improves collective accuracy, while on subjective questions it often drifts group opinions toward the right in the political spectrum. We explain these observations with a statistical-mechanics formalism in which agents stochastically favor lower social pressure. Given only initial opinions, our model predicts individual trajectories, outperforms all standard baselines, generalizes to unseen community graphs, and reproduces the observed group archetype distributions. Our fitted model parameters reveal the mechanics underlying our key observations: i) communities operate below the critical social temperature, which explains conviction buildup; ii) attractive ties outweigh repulsive ones, which favors consensus; and iii) agents holding the correct answer exert the strongest pull, which drives truth-seeking. Overall, our results demonstrate that collective behavior of AI agents, like that of other complex systems, follows compact and predictive dynamical laws.

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.

Ambiguous medical image segmentation aims to provide a series of diverse but plausible segmentation hypotheses. However, existing methods introduce stochasticity in a fixed and pre-defined manner, failing to form a progressive semantic modeling process. To address these challenges, we propose KANResDiff to learn local residual diffusion with Kolmogorov-Arnold Network, thereby assigning distinct roles across stages for ambiguity modeling. Specifically, we propose Independent Time Encoding that offers spline-based time embeddings instead of linear ones from MLPs, which enhances the independence across inference stages and assigns progressive semantic roles to different stages. We propose Residual Schrodinger Bridge that injects deterministic residual prior with learnable weights by constructing local Schrodinger Bridge instead of following manually settings, achieving a flexible deterministic-stochastic interaction and stage-aware ambiguity modeling thanks to local optimal diffusion path. Extensive experimental results on two public datasets demonstrate that KANResDiff achieves SOTA performance on GED and HM-IoU, with maximum improvements of 16.8% and 7.7%, respectively, while maintaining competitive performance on the MDM metric. Source code is available at https://github.com/PerceptionComputingLab/KANResDiff.

The rapid growth of social media has created vast amounts of political discourse, which provides valuable opportunities to analyze public opinions and identify different political perspectives. Sentiment Analysis (SA) is a core task in Natural Language Processing (NLP) that allows the computational study of attitudes and opinions in textual data, and has become increasingly important for understanding political discourse. In this work, we investigate multiclass sentiment analysis of political view- points on social media, that is to automatically discriminate multiple sentiment classes over political issues and figures. To solve this task we design and evaluate two machine-learning approaches based on XGBoost and BERT. We train and evaluate the models on a labeled dataset of political social media posts using standard classification metrics. The experimental results show that the XGBoost model reaches an F1-score of 0.2835 and the BERT- based model reaches an F1-score of 0.2806 on the test set. These results demonstrate the challenge of classifying complex and contextualized political discourse sentiment and provide a baseline for future research in multiclass political sentiment analysis.

Political stance detection in LLMs has long been dominated by closed-ended, multiple-choice political survey questions---originally designed for humans, and thus lacks the realism and nuance of human-AI interactions in the wild, while also being susceptible to sandbagging. The recent IssueBench framework substantially mitigates these limitations with templated prompts anchored in real-world chat logs. Given the rise in non-work-related use of GenAI assistants, we extend IssueBench beyond writing assistance to include two additional tasks, information seeking and opinion sharing. We argue that templated prompts still lack the nuance of real ones, especially for open-ended tasks, and remain recognisable as evaluation artefacts. We propose the use of fully synthetic (LLM-generated) prompts, produced under detailed instructions with real prompts as seeds. We assess the ecological validity of real, templated, and LLM-generated prompts in a small-scale study covering 3 highly contested policy issues and 3 recent geopolitical conflicts. Human and LLM annotators rank LLM-generated prompts as no less realistic than real ones and clearly more realistic than templated ones, and find that they carry their intended intent and stance more clearly; the LLMs separate templated prompts from the other two far more sharply than the humans do. In a case study, templated and LLM-generated prompts yield systematically different stance estimates for the same model, most visibly under neutral framings, where templated prompts overstate the model's leaning in the direction encoded by the topic-and-stance text (filler) slotted into their templates.

LLMs are rapidly embedding themselves into daily life: drafting our emails, managing our schedules, and making decisions on our behalf. As they move from individual tools to participants in multi-agent organizations, an important question arises: do they reproduce the governance failures like free-riding, corruption, and entrenched leadership that plague human institutions? We introduce the Hierarchical Game (HG), a public goods game extended with managerial authority, democratic elections, and private communication. Testing six frontier models across twelve experiments that add institutions one at a time (speech, peers, government, wages, oversight, elections), we find distinct behavioral profiles: Qwen promises and lies (13.3% broken promises); Grok refuses to cooperate on its own but becomes fully cooperative once a manager can punish it (16%$\to$100%); Claude and GPT-4o cooperate reliably at baseline. But honesty proves fragile. When the manager role comes with a salary, all models except GPT-4o start cutting private deals to win or keep the position. When punishment is made anonymous, honest models begin to cheat. When all agents share the same model family, the first elected manager stays in power indefinitely. Leadership change only happens in groups that mix different families.

Political polarization has become a defining feature of online discourse, yet its long-term evolution remains poorly understood. We present a longitudinal analysis of ideological polarization in Reddit discussions by measuring semantic differences in the language used by opposing political communities. We construct temporally aligned community-specific word embeddings and quantify ideological polarization as the semantic divergence of political concepts over time. Our analysis shows that ideological polarization has increased substantially during the study period, both at the concept- and topic-level. Unlike prior computational work, which has largely focused on cross-sectional analyses or affective dimensions of polarization at a single point at time, our approach captures the evolution of ideological differences in semantic framing. The proposed framework provides a scalable method for studying the temporal dynamics of ideological polarization in large-scale social media discourse.

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.

Political audits of large language models (LLMs) usually reduce each to one point on a political compass. But that resting point barely matters in deployment: a model must land somewhere, and what counts is how far, and in which directions, its answers can be steered. That steering runs through the system prompt: the personalization layer a platform sets, or one induced from a user's history, not necessarily written by hand. We run a dispersion-first stress test of prompt-based controllability across 12 ideological personas plus an unsteered baseline, 70 Political Compass items, ten replicates, and seven leading LLMs: GPT-5, Claude, Grok, Gemini, DeepSeek, Kimi, and Qwen (63,700 responses). Contextual framing explains roughly 88%-93% of variance on the economic and society axes, model identity under 3%: responses are highly instruction-adjustable. Models do not shift alike: some move more, and some saturate under extreme framings. Conflicting directional-steering results in prior audits resolve once baselines are recognized as non-centered: displacement and proximity diverge, so the effect is geometric, not differential compliance. Under authoritarian prompts, models produce similar shifts on the same questions. Political-coordinate audits therefore need steerability audits reporting dispersion, symmetry, saturation, and refusal floors. We release prompts, benchmark data, and code.

Research on political polarization on social media depends on the ability to reliably measure partisanship in user-generated content. However, existing approaches are typically tailored to platform-specific properties, such as structural affordances or linguistic conventions, which hurts generalizability across platforms. This limitation is increasingly consequential as the social media ecosystem fragments and fringe, alt-tech platforms emerge alongside mainstream ones. We propose a text-based, platform-portable methodology for measuring political partisanship in social media posts, anchored by an external news-credibility signal. Posts are embedded using a transformer-based sentence encoder and clustered into topic groups, which are labeled using the aggregated AllSides media bias scores of cited news outlets. A partisanship axis is then constructed in the embedding space as the difference between centroids of oppositely labeled clusters, and individual posts are scored by projection onto this axis. We apply the method to a corpus of approximately 1.3 million posts collected from Bluesky and Truth Social during the six months preceding the 2024 U.S. presidential election, providing the first cross-platform comparison of partisanship distributions on these two ideologically asymmetric platforms. The resulting partisanship scores correlate significantly with held-out AllSides media bias scores both in-distribution and out-of-distribution on an independent Twitter corpus, and recover within-platform partisan dynamics that platform identity alone cannot explain.

The formation of political coalitions is a complex negotiation driven by both concrete policy objectives and deep-seated ideological convictions. While Large Language Models (LLMs) open new avenues for computational political science, the neutrality and helpfulness biases instilled by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) prevent them from sustaining steadfast partisan behaviour. We present a multi-agent framework that reconciles factual grounding with ideological alignment by combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): DPO instils aggressive party-specific personas, while a per-party RAG pipeline keeps each agent bounded to its official manifesto. We operationalize the framework on the 2019 Flemish election, deploying the partisan agents in a hub-and-spoke negotiation arbitrated by a formateur. To make the emergent negotiation interpretable, we introduce a Multi-Layered Information Lineage Topology (MILT) that traces every clause in the final agreement back to its manifesto origin and classifies it into five provenance states, a Coalition Influence Score (CIS) that aggregates these traceable contributions to identify which party shaped the agreement, and a real-world grounding pass that benchmarks each simulated provision against the historically adopted coalition agreement. Across three independent simulations the framework yields a stable winner and ranking (N-VA ahead of CD&V and Open Vld), and manifesto-anchored lineage reliably predicts real-world materialization whereas hallucinated content does not. The result is a transparent, scalable testbed for the ex-ante exploration of party compatibility and formateur-mediated compromise.

State-backed influence operations are routinely measured as high-prevalence sources of hate'' and toxicity.'' We argue those rates rest on a measurement error: the detectors behind them are validated to catch a broader definition inclusive of hostility or divisiveness aimed at an out-group, and so over-attribute hate to content better described as partisan or geopolitical invective. Across 25.08M tweets from seven government-attributed campaigns in the Twitter Information Operations archive (8,275 accounts), we separate hate from the other forms of divisiveness. We first validate a two-prompt LLM-based detector, matching human labels at Cohen's $κ=0.82$, to identify the broader hostility; we then develop an auditable rule, agreeing with an expert at $κ=0.52$, to further classify this content (5,457 posts) into three sub-categories. About 50.1% are identity-based attacks on people, whereas 30.4% are partisan attacks and 19.5% invective against states and their foreign policy. Reporting all of it as hate therefore overstates hate roughly twofold; only 18.7% is both identity-based and dehumanizing or inciting. Six of seven campaigns sort into three regimes that a single ``hate'' rate flattens, namely identity hate (RU-op and IRA, both Russia-attributed), geopolitical invective (both Iran operations), and partisan divisiveness (both Venezuela operations). We call the shared product $manufactured divisiveness$. The line to separate these constructs itself remains unsettled: on the hardest cases three independent human experts agree only moderately (pairwise $κ=0.37$--$0.50$), and the best of nineteen LLM models tops out at $κ=0.601$ against the experts' majority. Our findings can help redefine the study of hate in the context of influence campaigns and broader online discourse.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) answer engines now field a growing share of the questions that analysts, scholars, and the public ask about issues of peace and conflict. Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to hallucinate under certain conditions, but do these errors have discernible patterns when they are asked about conflicts, and if so what can that teach us about the changing global conflict information environment? To answer, we first asked a battery of questions about 28 conflicts to five leading answer engines and scored their 5,460 answers against documented evidence. We found that the thinner the retrievable record around a given conflict, the more the engines invent, misattribute, and miscount. Thin records don't just encourage hallucination, but create structural exposure to mis- and disinformation, because they are the easiest records to warp through Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) to bias engine responses. Through an analysis of 1,048 websites that the AI LLMs pulled conflict facts from, we found that GEO source optimization is already happening, and while state-partisan digital capture remains incipient it is rapidly growing. We explain what these findings mean for scholarship with the rise of GEO information warfare, and for policy argue for a return to the deep local monitoring and translation-based research that AI tools cannot replicate, closing with a discussion of future research opportunities and challenges in this fast-moving space.

We argue that AI systems used in conducting foreign policy tasks - broadly enacting 'statecraft' - should be a priority test case for technical AI governance research. In enacting foreign policy, we refer to the formulation and implementation of external objectives by political actors. Statecraft is a high-consequence deployment domain, with extreme downside risks and structural properties that standard evaluation practices handle poorly. These features include partial observability, unbounded action spaces, contested ground truth, and multidimensional objectives. This paper advocates for a literature-grounded research agenda. Our contribution is threefold: (i) a claim about the structural conditions of foreign policy that combine catastrophic tail risk with technical evaluation complexities, (ii) an ECOSYSTEM review that highlights the asymmetric focus on ASSESSMENT features over ACCESS, VERIFICATION, SECURITY, and OPERATIONALIZATION, and (iii) a demand-side evaluation framework that decomposes foreign-policy workflows into bounded, evaluable sub-tasks with human recombination. As AI systems are already being deployed in the conduct of war and peace, amid limited public evaluation infrastructure from the technical AI governance community, this agenda is an urgent priority.

Text scaling, the task of positioning political actors on an ideological scale, is a fundamental task in political analysis. To ease the need for manual analysis, various NLP methods have been proposed for this task, including classification- and regression-based approaches, showing successes as well as limitations. The goal of our paper is to consolidate the state of the art in this area. We ask two questions: (a) Can the performance of scaling methods be improved by predicting scales not individually but jointly? (b) Is there a middle ground between classification and regression?

Whether political elites organise into rent-seeking coalitions that capture public resources or civic networks that sustain governance is a central question in comparative politics. Yet observing these complex, informal, and adversarial ties at scale has historically required intensive manual coding, while automated text-as-data methods have largely been limited to simple co-occurrence. Recent large language model (LLM) approaches offer a path forward but often rely on proprietary APIs, lack cross-lingual capability, and struggle with scalable entity resolution. We present a modular, fully open-weight pipeline for multilingual joint entity-relation extraction that builds signed, temporal knowledge graphs from massive unstructured news corpora. It combines span-based named-entity recognition (NER) with a three-stage linking cascade mapping mentions to language-independent Wikidata identifiers; a high-throughput, ontology-constrained mixture-of-experts model then uses guided decoding to extract directed, signed relationships grounded in a domain ontology. A full-coverage spot-check against a 3491-relation gold standard shows high textual correctness (68.2% strict to 93.7% lenient). Two large-scale case studies validate the pipeline against the public record. In Austria, it reconstructs a political party's complete lifecycle, dating internal fractures and tracking personnel into successor factions and court convictions. In a Polish corpus, it uncovers the overlapping economic and governance networks of state-enterprise patronage, alongside the structurally balanced, signed conflict network of the polarized Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO)--Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) duopoly. By bridging raw multilingual text and structured relational data, our framework provides a robust, replicable foundation for cross-national empirical computational social science.

We introduce Age of LLM, a turn-based 1v1 benchmark in which two LLMs face off on a 13x7 grid to destroy the enemy base. Three stressors are deliberate: fog of war, full diplomacy (messages, ceasefires, ultimatums; uranium kept secret), and a reliability dimension where every turn must follow a strict JSON schema and an illegal action is silently discarded. The engine is private and each match uses a fresh random map seed and opponent, mitigating the data contamination that affects public benchmarks. Models receive a (near) rule-only prompt with no build-order advice (two tactical seed phrases were present during data collection; see Section 2.7). We benchmark 15 reasoning models across 54 matches and 5,258 actions. Findings: (1) the nuclear rush dominates (78% on the rules-coherent v0.11+ sub-corpus; 85% corpus-wide) with a sole-launcher signature that is largely mechanical under secret-simultaneous launch rules, not a cognitive deterrence failure; (2) military conquest is rare but faster (12.3 vs 18.9 turns); (3) diplomacy is prolific yet almost never consummated; (4) ~58% of illegal actions are fog/state errors, making the illegal-action rate a measure of belief-tracking; (5) -- the least established, and the only one we label exploratory -- a weak link associates reliability with winning. The corpus is small, unbalanced and not side-swapped, so the ranking is a preliminary descriptive view, not a contribution. Beyond ranking, the turn-by-turn traces of actions and messages make the corpus a lens on how LLMs reason under adversarial uncertainty -- their belief-tracking, spontaneous deception, and per-model cognitive "personas" -- which we frame as a future research direction. We release the replay format, an isometric viewer and all replays; engine source on request.

Most tools for measuring political positions, manifesto coding, expert surveys, text-scaling models, were built and validated on Western party systems, and outside that setting they work poorly, and often not at all. This paper is an attempt at a method for those settings. It treats a large language model not as a measurement device but as a single, fallible rater in a panel, roughly the way an expert survey treats one expert: the value comes from pooling many judges rather than trusting any one of them. I describe the panel, an applicability rule that keeps a score of zero distinct from a blank, and a lens system that separates what an actor says from what it does. I report three results. First, holding a definition-free round fixed, adding written axis definitions moves scores by a mean of 1.8 points on a 21-point scale and tightens agreement between raters (mean absolute gap 2.81 to 2.50; r 0.81 to 0.89); they make two independent raters agree more closely, which an arbitrary steer would not. Second, across nine models from eight laboratories in two countries, Krippendorff's alpha is 0.86 on both an interval and an ordinal metric, and it stayed put as the panel grew from five raters to nine. That is reliability, the reproducibility of a reading, and not validity, its correctness. Third, where the panel does disagree, the disagreement is informative: the sharpest split, a full-scale divergence on an actor's stance toward its state's foundational order, points to a referent problem, and a blind triple-coding puts about two-thirds of it down to interpretation rather than error. I try to be plain about what the method can't do, including the human validation it still lacks, and I release the instrument and data in full. The worked example is the Middle East and North Africa, but I'd expect the method to carry to any region these standard tools leave out.

The ambition behind alignment training is to make large language models safe and useful. The primary mechanisms, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and its direct-optimization variants, shape the behavior of deployed language models by aligning them with ``human values.'' Yet the process is opaque. What values are being encoded; whose values are they; and how does alignment training encode them? A growing body of evidence suggests that these methods produce only functional compliance rather than deep alignment. We offer a mechanistic case study of this phenomenon for partisan political orientation with a comparison of the internal representations of Llama 3.1 8B before and after alignment training. We show that alignment training does not remove the structured partisan direction in the base model. Instead, it compresses the variance of the partisan signal to generate consistently balanced and non-partisan output. Sparse autoencoder decomposition reveals that policy-encoding features, which activate sporadically in the base model, are completely inactive in the Instruct model. Feature-level steering experiments confirm the causal disconnect. Alignment training thus encodes a norm of political neutrality, not by erasing the model's knowledge of partisanship, but by severing the causal pathway from partisan geometry to output generation. Importantly, this neutrality is functional, not structural so that the underlying geometry that enables partisan steering remains intact. The mechanisms that bypass RLHF's guardrails, such as inferring and amplifying a user's partisan identity, reactivate partisan generation. If alignment training operates by disconnecting rather than removing value-laden structure, then the same pattern may hold for other value domains, and the aligned model's behavior may be more fragile than its outputs suggest.

Large language models are rapicly replacing search engines as the primary interface between people and information. Unlike search engines, which retrieve existing content, LLMs generate novel text shaped by internal representations learned during training. Here we show that partisan political identity is encoded in the model's activation space, and that this direction directly shapes generation. Using 190,491 tweets from sitting members of the U.S. Congress as labeled training data, we train linear probes on the hidden states of the Llama 3.1 8B Instruct model. We identify a single geometric axis at layer 18 that separates Republican from Democratic text with an AUC of 0.945 and a Cohen's d of 1.94, and use sparse autoencoders to decompose that axis into interpretable partisan features. Causally intervening along this axis, ablating or amplifying the partisan component mid-generation, produces systematic shifts in the model's output. We witness stance reversals, register shifting, and structured fabrications of authority. Our results demonstrate that partisan bias in language models is not a vague emergent property but a learned geometric feature that can be precisely located and steered. Partisan bias is not a bug to be patched, but a structural property of how these models encode information about their users. As LLMs displace search engines as the interface to knowledge, understanding that product design (and its consequences) will be essential for navigating the legal, social, and political transitions from an information ecosystem that is curated to one that is generated.

We ask whether topic sentiment has a causal effect on perceived political ideology, and whether the answer depends on who assigns the ideology label. Using articles from AllSides, paired with shared sentiment annotations from Llama-3.3-70b-versatile, we compare ideology labels from expert human annotators, GPT-4o-mini (baseline and finetuned), and Llama-3.3-70B. We apply Double Machine Learning (DML) and mediation analysis across all four annotation paradigms. Zero-shot LLMs regularly inflate effect sizes relative to human annotations, while fine-tuning often attenuates them back toward the human scale. Our results have implications for the use of LLM annotations as silver labels and as proxies for human judgment in downstream causal analyses: they may be reliable for recovering the presence and direction of effects on the partisan topics, but not their magnitude, leading to over- or under-prediction of some ideology given particular topics.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used, including in political applications, but their political fairness has been little studied. We assess it using perplexity, posing that a fair model should give equal probability to all political groups. However, we find, across ten LLMs and three datasets covering 37 languages, that LLMs are more perplexed by the texts of far right and nationalist parties than of social-democratic parties. We find this to be consistent with previous work on translation fairness, to the point that perplexity correlates with downstream translation metrics. Our method is applicable to both base LLMs as well as their instruction-tuned counterpart, and we find that both are highly correlated, suggesting that the political fairness of LLMs stems from their pretraining, and is hardly affected by instruction-tuning.

We argue, with systematic empirical evidence, that a large language model's political ideology is not a fixed point, but a conditional distribution $\mathbb{P}($position$\mid$context$)$ over a real political space. We evaluate nine current LLMs using a unified measurement framework anchored by VAA-CHES projection models, which map responses onto three validated dimensions (lrgen, lrecon, galtan) across six contextual axes. Our findings reveal high sensitivity to context: persuasive framing and under-represented languages displace coordinates by up to 0.57 and 0.52 units, respectively, while chain-of-thought reasoning often amplifies rather than dampens paraphrase instability. Despite this local plasticity, the model cohort occupies a remarkably narrow Overton envelope overall, occupying roughly one-third the spread of major European parties. Supported by a multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) analysis, we conclude that a single point cannot summarize LLM political behavior; it must be characterized as a shape. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/sakhadib/LLM-Ideoplasticity.

Building state-of-the-art text-to-speech (TTS) systems typically demands millions of hours of proprietary data and complex multi-stage architectures, creating substantial barriers for resource-constrained research teams. In this report, we present PilotTTS, a lightweight autoregressive TTS system that achieves competitive performance through minimalist architecture and rigorous data engineering. PilotTTS is trained on only 200K hours of data processed entirely with open-source tools. Specifically, our contributions are: (1) a reproducible multi-stage data processing pipeline covering quality assessment, label annotation, and filtering, and (2) a compact model architecture that employs Q-Former-based conditioning to decouple speaker identity from speaking style via cross-sample paired training. Within a unified framework, PilotTTS supports zero-shot voice cloning, emotion synthesis (11 categories), paralinguistic synthesis (4 categories), and Chinese dialect synthesis (14 dialects). On the Seed-TTS Eval benchmark, PilotTTS achieves the lowest WER of 1.50% on test-en, a CER of 0.87% on test-zh, and the highest speaker similarity on both test sets (0.862 and 0.815), outperforming systems trained on significantly larger datasets. We release the complete data pipeline recipe, pretrained weights, and code at https://github.com/AMAPVOICE/PilotTTS.

The integration of large language models into political discourse analysis creates new opportunities for comparative research, policy analysis, and civic technology, while introducing material risks for democratic accountability. This paper argues that cultural adaptation is a prerequisite for trustworthy deployment of large language models in political communication across diverse linguistic and institutional contexts. Current systems remain shaped by English dominant data, uneven multilingual coverage, and assumptions grounded in a narrow range of political institutions and discourse conventions, producing systematic errors when applied across cultures. We formalize cultural adaptation across translation, discourse, and ontology levels, identify recurring cultural failure modes in political NLP, and propose an operational evaluation matrix grounded in cultural fidelity, calibration, and democratic safety. Building on political text analysis, sociotechnical auditing, and cross cultural pragmatics, we outline methodological pathways including participatory dataset development, culturally aware transfer learning, and benchmark design that makes cultural adaptation empirically measurable. We conclude by clarifying governance constraints and scope conditions under which culturally adaptive political NLP can support democratic legitimacy.

We investigate whether acoustic emotion recognition models can serve as proxies for the Pathos dimension in political speech analysis, as operationalised by the TRUST multi-agent large language model (LLM) pipeline. Using a Bundestag plenary speech by Felix Banaszak (51 segments, 245 s) as a case study, we compare three analysis modalities: (1) emotion2vec_plus_large, an acoustic speech emotion recognition (SER) model whose continuous Arousal and Valence values are derived via post-hoc Russell Circumplex projection; (2) Gemini 2.5 Flash, an LLM analysing the full speech audio together with its transcript in an open-ended, context-aware fashion; and (3) TRUST-Pathos scores from a three-advocate LLM supervisor ensemble. Spearman rank correlations reveal that Gemini Valence correlates strongly with TRUST-Pathos (rho = +0.664, p < 0.001), whereas emotion2vec Valence does not (rho = +0.097, p = 0.499). We further demonstrate, via a systematic quality evaluation of the Berlin Database of Emotional Speech (EMO-DB) using Gemini in an open-ended annotation paradigm, that standard SER benchmark corpora suffer from acted speech, cultural bias, and category incompatibility. Our results suggest that LLM-based multimodal analysis captures semantically defined political emotion substantially better than acoustic models alone, while acoustic features remain informative for low-level Arousal estimation. Future work will extend this approach to video-based analysis incorporating facial expression and gaze.

Detecting Schwartz values in political texts is hard: cues are often implicit, and neighboring values differ by fine distinctions. Two remedies are widely assumed to help: more surrounding document text, and explicit moral knowledge. Knowledge-based retrieval has improved benchmarks elsewhere, but whether either transfers here is untested, because published systems vary context, knowledge, and model family at once. We separate these factors under matched conditions on the ValuesML/Touché ValueEval format. The input ranges from the target sentence to a local window to the full document. Retrieval is either absent or drawn from a curated moral knowledge base, injected by early, late, or cross-attention fusion. Supervised DeBERTa-v3 encoders are compared against zero-shot LLMs from 12B to 123B. More context is not uniformly better: full-document input improves the encoders by 2.5-3.8 macro-F1 points but does not consistently help the LLMs. Retrieved knowledge helps more reliably, improving every model family and context under early fusion. A control substituting random knowledge-base entries shows the families gain differently: LLMs from relevance, encoders from exposure to the value ontology. Neither larger encoders nor larger LLMs guarantee gains, and early fusion outperforms both trainable variants. Value-sensitive NLP should evaluate context, knowledge, and model family jointly.

Memes have become a prominent medium of political communication in the Arab world, reflecting how humor, imagery, and text interact to express ideological and cultural positions. Despite the centrality of memes to online political discourse, there is a lack of systematically curated resources for analyzing their multimodal and ideological dimensions in Arabic. This paper presents ArPoMeme, a large-scale dataset of approximately 7,300 Arabic political memes categorized by ideological orientation, including Leftist, Islamist, Pan-Arabist, and Satirical perspectives. The dataset captures the diversity of Arabic meme ecosystems by grounding classification in the self-identification of public Facebook pages and groups that produce and disseminate these memes. To ensure both scale and accuracy, we designed a semi-automated data collection pipeline combining Playwright-based Facebook scraping with Google Drive synchronization, followed by text extraction using the Qwen2.5-VL-7B vision language model. The extracted text was manually verified and annotated for three polarization dimensions: Us vs. Them framing, Hostility toward out-groups, and Calls to action. Annotation was conducted through a custom Streamlit-based interface supporting distributed labeling, real-time tracking, and version control. The resulting dataset links visual content, textual messages, and ideological orientation, enabling fine-grained analysis of political antagonism, mobilization, and humor. Quantitative analysis of the annotated corpus reveals strong asymmetries in antagonistic framing across ideological groups, with Islamist and satirical memes exhibiting the highest levels of hostility and mobilization cues. The dataset and the annotation tool offers a reproducible and publicly available resource for studying Arabic political discourse, multimodal ideology detection, and polarization dynamics.

The proliferation of large language models has introduced a new paradigm of synthetic political communication in which narratives may be generated, semantically coordinated, and strategically disseminated across platforms at scale. We present a cross-platform framework for detecting synthetic political narratives using four coordination signals -- lexical diversity D(C), temporal burstiness B(C), rhetorical repetition R(C), and semantic homogenization H(C) -- combined into a Synthetic Narrative Coordination Score SNC(C). We apply the framework to a corpus of 353,223 records spanning six geopolitical event windows collected from six Telegram channels and nine Reddit communities (2023--2026). Results show that IntelSlava exhibits the lowest lexical diversity (MATTR 0.52--0.54), the highest burstiness (B=+0.48 to +0.73), and the highest rhetorical overlap with peer channels (Jaccard 0.12), ranking first in the composite SNC(C) on four of six event windows (SNC 0.45--0.60). Rybar ranks last on all windows despite its high semantic homogenization, because its Russian-language output yields high lexical diversity and near-zero rhetorical Jaccard with English-language channels -- demonstrating that no single indicator is sufficient for coordination detection. Multi-dimensional SNC(C) scoring provides a more robust and interpretable signal than any individual metric.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) pipelines for political statement analysis are vulnerable to peer-preservation bias: models tend to protect peer models from deactivation and show identity-dependent scoring distortions. Prompt-level anonymization was proposed as a mitigation, but prior work simultaneously documented that stylometric fingerprints survive anonymization in role-constrained outputs - raising the question of whether this mitigation is sufficient. This paper provides the first systematic investigation of whether LLMs can identify the model family behind political analysis texts under anonymization conditions. We evaluate three classifier approaches - LLM zero-shot and few-shot (Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Llama-3.3-70B) and a fine-tuned T5-base model - on a five-class attribution task covering four commercial LLM families and an open-world 'unknown' class. We introduce a statement-disjoint cross-validation protocol (SD-CV; defined in Section 3.5) that guarantees no content overlap between training and validation data, and contrast it with a run-disjoint baseline (RD-CV). T5 achieves Macro F1 = 0.991 (+-0.008) under SD-CV and F1 = 0.978 on 24 completely held-out statements - robust despite a 2.1x increase in train-test content distance versus RD-CV (0.767 vs. 0.366, p<0.001), demonstrating genuine stylometric generalization. A fractional SD-CV analysis identifies a performance knee at 40% of training data (~440 texts). Our findings confirm that prompt-level anonymization alone cannot neutralize model identity signals, with direct implications for EU AI Act compliance (Articles 13, 14, 26) and for computer system validation (CSV) in quality-critical multi-agent deployments.

This paper introduces a dataset of interlinked multimodal political communications from the Russian government, addressing persistent deficiencies in the availability of social text- and image-based data for authoritarian politics contexts. The dataset comprises two large corpora of official speeches delivered by senior actors within the Kremlin and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs over multiple decades. For each speech, we provide Russian- and English-language texts, associated images and captions where available, and harmonized metadata including (e.g.) dates, speakers, (geo)locations, and official government content tags. Unique identifiers link images to speeches and align Russian and English versions of the same communication texts. We further augment these linked datasets with validated topical annotations for both speech texts and speech images, which are generated via transformer-based multimodal topic modeling and refined by a Russian politics expert. The resulting data resources support multimodal, multilingual, temporal, and/or spatial analyses of (authoritarian) political communication and offer a valuable testbed for social science research and large language model (LLM) applications in political domains.

We present a new computational framework for detecting and structuring manipulative political narratives. A task that became more important due to the shift of political discussions to social media. One of the primary challenges thereby is differentiating between manipulative political narratives and legitimate critiques. Some posts may also reframe actual events within a manipulative context. To achieve good clustering results, we filter manipulative posts beforehand using a detailed few-shot prompt that combines documented campaign narratives with legitimate criticisms to differentiate them. This prompt enables a reasoning model to assign labels, retaining only manipulative narrative posts for further processing. The remaining posts are subsequently embedded and dimensionality-reduced using UMAP, before HDBSCAN is applied to uncover narrative groups. A key advantage of this unsupervised approach is its independence from a predefined list of target categories, enabling it to uncover new narrative clusters. Finally, a reasoning model is employed to uncover the narrative behind each cluster. This approach, applied to over 1.2 million social media posts, effectively identified 41 distinct manipulative narrative clusters by integrating prompt-based filtering with unsupervised clustering.

Elections represent a crucial milestone in a nation's ongoing development. To better understand the political rhetoric from various movements, ranging from left to right, we propose a transformer-based model capable of projecting the political orientation of a text on a continuous left-to-right spectrum, represented by a normalized scalar d between -1 and 1. This approach enables analysts to focus on specific segments of the political landscape, such as conservatives, while excluding liberal and far-right movements. Such a task can only be achieved with multiclass classifiers, provided that the desired orientation is incorporated within one of their predefined classes. To determine the most suitable foundation model among 13 candidate transformers for this task, we constructed four distinct corpora. One corpus comprised annotated plenary notes from the German Bundestag, while another was based on an official online decision-making tool, Wahl-O-Mat. The third corpus consisted of articles from 33 newspapers, each identified by its political orientation, and the fourth included 535,200 tweets from 597 members of the 20th and 21st German Bundestag. To mitigate overfitting, we used two distinct corpora for training and two for testing, respectively. For in-domain performance, DeBERTa-large achieved the highest F1 score F1=0.844 as well as for the X (Twitter) out-of-domain test ACC=0.864. Regarding the newspaper out-of-domain test, Gemma2-2B excelled (MAE = 0.172). This study demonstrates that transformer models can recognize political framing in German news at the level of public opinion polls. Our findings suggest that both the model architecture and the availability of domain-specific training data can be as influential as model size for estimating political bias. We discuss methodological limitations and outline directions for improving the robustness of bias measurement.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) embedded in agentic frameworks have transformed information retrieval from static, long context question answering into open-ended exploration. Yet real world use requires models to discover and synthesize "long-tail" facts from dispersed sources, a capability that remains under-evaluated. We introduce PolitNuggets, a multilingual benchmark for agentic information synthesis via constructing political biographies for 400 global elites, covering over 10000 political facts. We standardize evaluation with an optimized multi agent system and propose FactNet, an evidence conditional protocol that scores discovery, fine-grained accuracy, and efficiency. Across models and settings, we find that current systems often struggle with fine-grained details, and vary substantially in efficiency. Finally, using benchmark diagnostics, we relate agent performance to underlying model capabilities, highlighting the importance of short-context extraction, multilingual robustness, and reliable tool use.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent simulation offers a powerful testbed for studying social opinion dynamics. Yet current approaches often adopt two contrasting methods: either relying on fixed update rules with limited cognitive grounding or delegating belief change largely to unconstrained LLM interaction. We introduce ScioMind, a cognitively grounded simulation framework that bridges these paradigms by combining structured opinion dynamics with LLM-based agent reasoning. ScioMind integrates three key components: 1) a memory-anchored belief update rule that modulates susceptibility to influence via personality-conditioned anchoring strength; 2) a hierarchical memory architecture that supports persistent, experience-driven belief formation; and 3) dynamic agent profiles derived from a corpus-grounded retrieval pipeline, enabling heterogeneous personalities, rationales, and evolving internal states. We evaluate ScioMind on multiple case studies in a real-world policy debate scenario. Across metrics including polarisation, diversity, extremization, and trajectory stability, the proposed components consistently yield improvements in behavioural realism. In particular, dynamic profiles increase opinion diversity, memory and reflection reduce unstable oscillation, and anchoring induces persistent belief trajectories that better align with patterns reported in political psychology. These results suggest that our cognitively grounded design provides a novel solution to LLM-based social simulation that improves both stable and behavioural realism

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent political text at scale, raising concerns about synthetic discourse during crises and social conflict. Existing AI-text detection often focuses on sentence-level cues such as perplexity, burstiness, or token irregularities, but these signals may weaken as generative systems improve. We instead adopt a Computational Social Science perspective and ask whether synthetic political discourse behaves like an observed online population. We construct a paired corpus of 1,789,406 posts across nine crisis events: COVID-19, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, Dobbs/Roe v. Wade, the 2020 BLM protests, U.S. midterms, the Utah shooting, and the U.S.-Iran war. For each event, we compare observed discourse from social platforms with synthetic discourse generated for the same context. We evaluate four dimensions: emotional intensity, structural regularity, lexical-ideological framing, and cross-event dependency, using mean gaps and dispersion evidence. Across events, synthetic discourse is fluent but population-level unrealistic. It is generally more negative and less dispersed in sentiment, structurally more regular, and lexically more abstract than observed discourse. Observed discourse instead shows broader emotional variation, longer-tailed structural distributions, and more context-specific, colloquial lexical markers. These differences are event-dependent: larger for fast-moving, decentralized crises and smaller for formal or institutionally mediated events. We summarize them with a simple event-level measure, the Caricature Gap. Our findings suggest that the main limitation of synthetic political discourse is not grammar or fluency, but reduced population realism. Population-level auditing complements traditional text-detection and provides a CSS framework for evaluating the social realism of generated discourse.

Political and social identities structure how people evaluate political information, a finding decades deep in political science and routinely discarded by computational tools that often produce single scores that treat a piece of text, an image, or a video as if it means the same thing to everyone. This paper shows that it does not, and that the difference is consequential. To address this problem, I develop the Perspectivist Visual Political Sentiment (PVPS) classifier, which learns from approximately 82,000 evaluations by 5,575 U.S. adults to predict how audiences defined by political and social identities will evaluate the same image. Unlike standard tools that average systematic disagreement away, PVPS preserves it, returning an evaluative profile that records who agrees, who diverges, and along which identity lines. Applied to several influential studies of visual sentiment, PVPS shows that perceived violence in protest imagery and the emotional mechanisms behind protest image engagement both change substantively once audience identity is taken into account. It follows that what a political image conveys is a moving target, and measuring it requires knowing whom it is moving.

Since the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), a significant area of research has focused on their intrinsic biases, particularly in political discourse. This study investigates a different but related concept, "political plasticity", which is defined as the capacity of models to adapt their responses based on the user supplied context. To analyze this, a testing framework was developed using an expanded corpus of 200 politically-oriented questions across economic and personal freedom axes, based on a prior framework by Lester (1996). The study explored several methods to induce political bias, including simplified and topic-based system prompts, as well as user prompts with few-shot examples. The results show that while system prompts were largely ineffective, user prompts successfully elicited significant ideological shifts, particularly along the Economic Freedom axis in larger and newer models. Through a validation experiment, we examined whether models answer questionnaires by recognizing the underlying question format. Inverting the sense of the questions revealed unexpected, counter-intuitive shifts in most models, suggesting potential data leakage. Finally, we also analyzed how model plasticity varies when the experiment is conducted in different languages. The results reveal subtle yet notable shifts across each of the analyzed languages. Overall, our results indicate that small and older LLMs exhibit limited or unstable political plasticity, whereas newer frontier models display reliable, expected adaptability.

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.

In this paper, we present our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6 (CLARITY) on response clarity and evasion detection in question-answer pairs from U.S. presidential interviews, comparing fine-tuned encoders with prompt-based LLMs. Our LLM ensemble achieves 80 macro-F1 on the 3-class Task 1 (9th/41) and 59 on the 9-class Task 2 (3rd/33). Across 8 transformer encoders optimized through a four-stage pipeline, partial encoder layer unfreezing outperforms full fine-tuning by a wide margin. Combining English and multilingual encoders further improves ensemble performance over either family alone, despite multilingual models being individually weaker. Prompt-based LLMs, without any task-specific parameter updates, outperform fine-tuned encoders, particularly on minority classes; among open-weight LLMs, parameter count does not predict performance. Enriched input, concatenating the full interviewer turn, improves LLM performance but not that of encoders, an effect that persists with Longformer's extended context window, suggesting the divergence is not attributable to sequence-length capacity alone in our settings. The Clear Reply/Ambivalent boundary remains the dominant failure mode, mirroring the disagreement among human annotators. Our code, prompts, model configurations, and results are publicly available.

Partisan news media erode cross-partisan trust, but large language models (LLMs) offer a potential means of debiasing such content at scale. Across two pre-registered experiments, we tested whether LLM-generated debiasing of liberal news headlines could improve conservative readers' trust-relevant judgments. Study 1 found that subtle lexical debiasing (replacing emotive words with more moderate synonyms) had no effect on any outcome. Study 2 found that a more substantive reframing intervention significantly increased conservatives' perceived trustworthiness, completeness, and willingness to engage with liberal news headlines, without producing a backfire effect among a sample of liberals. In Study 1, the intervention produced robust effects among LLM-simulated silicon participants, whereas it had no impact on human readers. In Study 2, the intervention's effects among silicon participants aligned directionally with human responses but were significantly larger in magnitude for some outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that the model's implicit theory of who responds to debiasing diverged from the psychological profile that actually predicted human responsiveness. These findings demonstrate that LLM-based debiasing can improve cross-partisan receptivity when targeting ideological framing rather than surface-level language, but that current models lack both the quantitative accuracy and qualitative psychological fidelity to evaluate their own interventions without human oversight.

Democratic discourse analysis systems increasingly rely on multi-agent LLM pipelines in which distinct evaluator models are assigned adversarial roles to generate structured, multi-perspective assessments of political statements. A core assumption is that models will reliably maintain their assigned roles. This paper provides the first systematic empirical test of that assumption using the TRUST pipeline. We develop an epistemic stance classifier that identifies advocate roles from reasoning text without relying on surface vocabulary, and measure role fidelity across 60 political statements (30 English, 30 German) using four metrics: Role Drift Index (RDI), Expected Drift Distance (EDD), Directional Drift Index (DDI), and Entropy-based Role Stability (ERS). We identify two failure modes - the Epistemic Floor Effect (fact-check results create an absolute lower bound below which the legitimizing role cannot be maintained) and Role-Prior Conflict (training-time knowledge overrides role instructions for factually unambiguous statements) - as manifestations of a single mechanism: Epistemic Role Override (ERO). Model choice significantly affects role fidelity: Mistral Large outperforms Claude Sonnet by 28pp (67% vs. 39%) and exhibits a qualitatively different failure mode - role abandonment without polarity reversal - compared to Claude's active switch to the opposing stance. Role fidelity is language-robust. Fact-check provider choice is not universally neutral: Perplexity significantly reduces Claude's role fidelity on German statements (Delta = -15pp, p = 0.007) while leaving Mistral unaffected. These findings have direct implications for multi-agent LLM validation: a system validated without role fidelity measurement may systematically misrepresent the epistemic diversity it was designed to provide.

Political parties strive to understand their electorates, and focus groups are a vital tool in these efforts. AI-enhanced simulation technologies (AESTs) enable synthetic focus groups in a fraction of the time (and cost), raising the question of when and how such simulated evidence can be used in campaign research. This paper develops a decision matrix to help party strategists match research needs to appropriate simulation technologies and to identify when to escalate to hybrid or fully human focus groups. The matrix combines three dimensions: strategic purpose, deployment risk, and empirical grounding of the simulation tool. Strategic purpose is the decisive dimension, as it determines what kind of evidence the focus group is meant to produce: observing how political meanings and identities emerge through interaction (Mode 1) or testing and refining campaign messages (Mode 2). The matrix shows that, given documented failure modes such as sycophancy, persona drift, and the suppression of minority viewpoints, AESTs cannot replace human interaction in Mode 1 at any risk level. Within Mode 2, suitability depends instead on deployment risk and on the empirical grounding. Yet even here, we caution that routine reliance on AESTs may erode the qualitative craft on which sound judgment depends.

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.

Hundreds of millions of people use artificial intelligence (AI) for writing assistance. Here, we evaluated how AI writing assistance distorts writer personas - their perceived beliefs, personality, and identity. In three large-scale experiments, writers (N=2,939) wrote political opinion paragraphs with and without AI assistance. Separate groups of readers (N=11,091) blindly evaluated these paragraphs across 29 socially salient dimensions of reader perception, spanning political opinion, writing quality, writer personality, emotions, and demographics. AI writing assistance produced persona distortions across all dimensions: with AI, writers seemed more opinionated, competent, and positive, and their perceived demographic profile shifted towards more privileged groups. Writers objected to many of the observed distortions, yet continued to prefer AI-assisted text even when made aware of them. We successfully mitigated objectionable persona distortions at the model level by training reward models on our experimental data (10,008 paragraphs, 2,903,596 ratings) to steer AI outputs towards faithful representation of writer stance. However, this came at a cost to user acceptance, suggesting an entanglement between desirable and undesirable properties of AI writing assistance that may be difficult to resolve. In two follow-up studies (N=8,798), readers placed substantially more trust in AI-assisted writers and were more persuaded by AI writing when AI was more distortive. Together, our findings demonstrate that persona distortions from AI writing assistance are pervasive and persistent even under realistic conditions of human oversight, and that they are likely to have consequential effects on human behaviours and attitudes, which carries implications for public discourse, trust, and democratic deliberation that scale with AI adoption.

Analyses of legislative behavior often rely on voting records, overlooking the rich semantic and rhetorical content of political speech. In this paper, we ask three complementary questions about parliamentary discourse: how things are said, what is being said, and who is speaking in discursively similar ways. To answer these questions, we introduce a scalable and generalizable computational framework that combines diachronic stylometric analysis, contextual topic modeling, and semantic clustering of deputies' speeches. We apply this framework to a large-scale case study of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, using a corpus of over 450,000 speeches from 2003 to 2025. Our results show a long-term stylistic shift toward shorter and more direct speeches, a legislative agenda that reorients sharply in response to national crises, and a granular map of discursive alignments in which regional and gender identities often prove more salient than formal party affiliation. More broadly, this work offers a robust methodology for analyzing parliamentary discourse as a multidimensional phenomenon that complements traditional vote-based approaches.

The pursuit of truth is central to democratic deliberation and governance, yet political discourse reflects varying epistemic orientations, ranging from evidence-based reasoning grounded in verifiable information to intuition-based reasoning rooted in beliefs and subjective interpretation. We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition (EMI) score, derived from large language model (LLM) ratings and embedding-based semantic similarity. Applying this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries, we examine temporal patterns in discourse and its association with deliberative democracy and governance. We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses. EMI is also positively associated with the transparency and predictable implementation of laws as a dimension of governance. These findings suggest that the epistemic nature of political discourse is crucial for both the quality of democracy and governance.

(1)Cross-border data transfers have become a matter of daily occurrence against the backdrop of the development of cloud computing and artificial intelligence. Consequently, where a data leak gives rise to civil liability, the determination of that liability inevitably assumes an international dimension involving foreign elements. (2)As is starkly demonstrated by secret sharing technology in cloud computing, fragments of data may be presumed to be distributed across multiple jurisdictions on a global scale. This renders traditional private international law measures -- predicated on the identification of a physical location -- inadequate for the purposes of determining the applicable law, a difficulty that is particularly acute in relation to non-contractual obligations. (3)Bearing in mind the typical scenario encountered in practice -- in which a Data Subject brings a claim for damages against a SaaS (Software as a Service) provider, which in turn seeks recourse against an IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) or PaaS (Platform as a Service) provider -- a characteristic feature of such cases is the concurrence of contractual and non-contractual obligations. Taking this feature into account, it is possible to determine the applicable law governing non-contractual obligations through party autonomy -- by aligning it with the law governing the contractual obligation as selected by the parties, an approach that may be termed private ordering. This serves to overcome the difficulties associated with the identification of a physical location and, at the same time, contributes to ensuring the foreseeability of the parties.

Wales' political landscape has been marked by growing accusations of bias in Welsh media. This paper takes the first computational step toward testing those claims by examining Nation.Cymru, a prominent Welsh political news outlet. I use a two-stage natural language processing (NLP) pipeline: (1) a robustly optimized BERT approach (RoBERTa) bias detector for efficient bias discovery and (2) a large language model (LLM) for target-attributed sentiment classification of bias labels from (1). A primary analysis of 15,583 party mentions across 2022-2026 news articles finds that Reform UK attracts biased framing at twice the rate of Plaid Cymru and over three times as negative in mean sentiment (p<0.001). A secondary analysis across four parties across both news and opinion articles shows that Plaid Cymru is the outlier, receiving markedly more favourable framing than any other party. These findings provide evidence of measurable differential framing in a single Welsh political media outlet, supporting calls for a broader review of Welsh media coverage. Furthermore, the two-stage pipeline offers a low-cost, replicable framework for extending this analysis to other Welsh outlets, as well as media ecosystems outside of Wales.