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 study of opinion dynamics in social networks is one of the key challenges in computational social science with direct relevance to understanding political polarization, misinformation, and health responses. Current approaches focus on simplified mathematical models that ignore linguistic and contextual factors related to belief updates or use Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulations that have not been validated against real data. We present a framework based on the concept of a digital twin to simulate opinion dynamics in social networks. The approach fills the gap by cloning a real-world Twitter network, assigns a set of attributes for agents (such as persona, emotions, centrality, stubbornness, and influence), and employs Mistral-7B to perform opinion update based on memory and social exposure. To evaluate the proposed approach, we validate it against two real Twitter datasets (COVID-19 discourse and U.S elections 2020). The results show that the capability of the proposed framework reproduces opinion trajectories and reduces individual prediction error by more than 50% compared to the best-performing classical baseline (Mistral-7B achieves Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = 0.150 and 0.121 on the COVID-19 and US Election 2020 datasets, respectively). We observe similar improvements in structural alignment (Delta_r = 0.120 and 0.180) and polarization dynamics (Delta_Var = 0.106 and 0.115) on the two datasets, respectively. Additionally, the ablation studies confirm that agent attributes, memory, and social exposure all contribute to the framework's predictive fidelity in reproducing opinion trajectories, with agent attributes being the most critical contributor. Overall, our results demonstrate that grounding Mistral-7B within empirically cloned interaction networks produces a realistic simulation framework capable of reproducing complex social dynamics.

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.

Simulated societies of large language model agents are used to study online polarization, and separately to study collective intelligence, but the two are rarely measured in the same system. It is therefore difficult to say whether a society's personality composition shapes both, or whether reducing polarization costs collective competence. We present TraitMix, an experimental design in which the Big Five composition of a simulated social network, both trait levels and trait heterogeneity, is a controlled experimental variable, and in which polarization and collective performance are measured in the same runs. Across 991 simulations of hundred-agent societies, spanning six contested topics and six language models, trait heterogeneity has the largest measured effects, acting in opposite directions on two faces of polarization: varied societies hold more dispersed opinions while being less segregated into camps, so homogeneous societies are not moderate but consensual echo chambers. Trait effects are not additive, as Agreeableness determines the sign of Openness, an interaction that replicates across models although the primary model's estimate is influence-driven. Contrary to the trade-off the study was designed to measure, no polarization measure predicts poorer collective performance, and cross-cutting interaction is the only one of four whose association with collective accuracy survives partialling on the aggregation identity. We report ablations removing two potential measurement circularities, an induction gate applied to every model, and the measures that failed them.

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.

With the rapid spread of news on social media, understanding the propagation of misinformation is becoming increasingly important. One factor that affects individuals' vulnerability to false information is their ideological predisposition. Despite the large number of agent-based models that focus on social influence as a driver of the spread of false claims, they often fail to explicitly integrate personal ideological biases into belief formation. In this work, we explore how misinformation spreads through the interaction between individuals' ideological biases and social influence. Our model accounts for both the strength of individuals' ideological biases and the extent to which a false claim aligns with their ideology. Social influence modifies the effects of ideological intensity and false claim alignment through network interactions. Notably, the influence of neighbours' ideological intensity on belief is strongly affected by how well those neighbours are connected to one another. These results highlight the importance of considering both network structure and personal ideological biases when modelling misinformation propagation.

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.

LLMs have been used to simulate human decision-making in professional settings, yet their behaviors in common-law jury trials remain unexplored. We study when and how a defendant's courtroom statement affects LLM-simulated jurors, focusing on persuasion, ideological bias, and background-based affinity. To support the analysis, we introduce JuryBench, a benchmark containing controversial criminal cases in U.S. criminal law. In each case, a defendant can claim various plausible justifications to support acquittal or reduced liability. We fix the base case and design defendants of different backgrounds, who give courtroom statements with varying emotional appeal or rebuttal. Jurors with diverse ideological profiles across the spectrum are simulated. We examine 20 frontier LLMs, resulting in a total of 432K decisions and rationales, and quantify changes in verdict severity. Our findings show that LLM-jury simulation echoes many human-jury findings. First, emotional persuasion can be detrimental, since jurors may perceive it as evidence of guilt or inconsistency. Next, we show that background fit between jurors and defendants is a stronger and significant factor than other isolated factors, and that jurors are in general harsher toward opposite-background defendants and lenient toward same-background ones. Finally, we find that juror ideology also strongly shapes severity judgments. These findings highlight both the promise and risks of using LLMs to model jury reasoning and call for careful evaluation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/choyingw/JuryBench

Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as information intermediaries, yet measuring their political behavior remains fragile because questionnaire results mix model dispositions with measurement artifacts and response-elicitation biases. We introduce a robust Political Compass Test evaluation framework that samples 300 configurations across an eight-dimensional perturbation space varying language, framing, instructions, answer format, option order, and persona wording. We evaluate eight Gemma 3 and Qwen 3 models across 14 languages and three quantization levels, obtaining design-averaged political coordinates with quantified uncertainty. Most models lean Libertarian-Left on average, but instruction phrasing, language, and answer format significantly affect recovered coordinates. Cross-lingual differences primarily reflect coordinate drift rather than distinct cultural reasoning. Reverse-engineering the test also exposes axis-weighting imbalances and the collapse of degenerate responses toward the center, so near-origin estimates for the smallest models can reflect weak signal rather than centrism. Free-text reasoning and chat-then-classify elicitation alter recovered coordinates, and larger models show clearer persona separation, with a specific failure of the Authoritarian-Left persona to move most models in the intended social direction. In downstream tasks, persona effects are modest relative to model size and target group for hate-speech detection, while base and centrist prompts give the highest agreement for topic-level sentiment. Political role prompting therefore has measurable but task- and dataset-specific downstream effects.

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.

This paper develops a general convolutional neural network (CNN) framework for detecting heterogeneous event-driven dynamics in univariate time series windows. We show that the induced CNN class exactly represents classifiers based on range, maximum drawup, maximum drawdown and slope change, and uniformly approximates realised volatility and autoregressive explosiveness on compact domains. We further establish error bounds for representative rules in finite samples and an oracle inequality for learning across them. Simulations show that the proposed model can match or outperform classifiers based on individual statistics as the training sample grows. In an application to six daily energy price series, a hierarchical CNN distinguishes event windows and event families. Applied without retraining to observations withheld after 20 February 2026, the fitted model identifies predominantly geopolitical dynamics in several oil and refined product series around the outbreak of the 2026 Iran war, while distinguishing a contemporaneous natural gas spike associated with weather.

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.

The language a legislature uses to debate women's rights, even in favour of them, encodes systematic patterns of sexism that persist across two centuries. In this work, we analyse 6,531 speeches over 200 years of UK parliamentary debate (Hansard, 1803-2005) by using large language models to classify a speaker's perspective towards women's suffrage and political representation, as well as analyse sexist speech in parliament from the lens of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. We also release this parliamentary dataset, an organized and metadata-enriched version of the publicly available Hansard Corpus optimized for computational social science research, with 6.7 million speeches across 1.2 million debates, with 89% gender-matching for speeches by MPs from the House of Commons. We find that 54% of speeches opposing women's representation contain sexist content, compared to 21% of speeches that are for the cause, and that the two sides use fundamentally different types of sexism: anti-suffrage rhetoric combines hostile and benevolent framing, while pro-suffrage sexism is overwhelmingly benevolent. Female MPs support women's political rights at 93% compared to 70% for male MPs, a gap that closes only after enfranchisement. Our findings are evidence that benevolent and hostile sexism are used in different rhetorical contexts in a manner consistent with the theory of Ambivalent Sexism.

In pointwise document reranking, Chain-of-Thought models typically underperform direct scoring models. While existing diagnostics attribute this to inferior classification, score polarization, or calibration breakdown, whether targeted training can bridge this gap remains unclear. Our empirical study first confirms that this gap is stable across scales up to 32B parameters, ruling out model and data capacity confounders. We then apply stress tests utilizing reinforcement learning, fine-grained supervision, and architectural decoupling to explicitly repair these deviations. Although these interventions improve classification accuracy and absolute scores, the relative ranking gap persists. These findings suggest that, within the pointwise scoring paradigm, routing continuous relevance semantics through discrete text constrains ranking signal resolution, revealing a bottleneck that is stable and difficult to overcome under current standard methods, rather than an easily resolvable training bias.

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.

Parliamentary proceedings are a primary record of democratic deliberation, yet their volume and fragmentation make multi-perspective access difficult for citizens, journalists, and researchers. Applying Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to parliamentary transcripts introduces three specific risks: dominance of the most frequent speakers, inability to weight speakers according to topical expertise, and citation misattribution in politically sensitive text. We present ParliamentRAG, a RAG system for the Italian Chamber of Deputies that addresses these risks jointly. Its core contribution is a topic-dependent authority model that estimates each speaker's authority as a function of the current query, combining interpretable components such as profession, education, and previous interventions. Given a user query, the system retrieves relevant speech chunks, identifies topic-relevant experts across parliamentary groups, and generates a summary synthesizing their perspectives, accompanied by supporting quotations. ParliamentRAG is evaluated against Google NotebookLM on 15 policy topics via a two-level protocol combining automated metrics and blind A/B human evaluation by six domain experts. The system achieves higher coverage across political groups (0.97 vs. 0.95), perfect quotation faithfulness (1.00 vs. 0.95), and stronger expert preferences on source-related dimensions, while NotebookLM remains stronger on prose-oriented dimensions.

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.

Self-introductions are common in legislative committee testimonies. Successfully detecting them and extracting the speaker's name is enormously helpful in the task of speaker identification in the context of government meetings. In this paper, we present a pipeline for detection of self-introductions in legislative committee testimony using machine learning. We construct a training dataset from 1.54 million utterances spanning five state legislative sessions, apply a name-matching heuristic to generate automatic labels, and train three classifiers: a decision tree, random forest, and XGBoost to find self-introductions and extract the speaker's name. We construct a feature set combining bag-of-words, positional context, structural signals, introductory phrase indicators, and discourse context features. Among the three classifiers, XGBoost achieves the best performance with an F1 score of 0.9747 and the fewest total errors; adding fine-tuned BERT probability features improves this further. As an extension, we score the full candidate dataset with a fine-tuned BERT classifier and add BERT probability outputs as features. This BERT-augmented XGBoost model improves F1 from 0.9747 to 0.9782 and reduces total test errors from 241 to 207. The primary gain over the decision tree baseline (F1 0.9323) is driven by discourse context features and the boosting ensemble strategy; BERT provides a modest complementary signal. Analysis of false positives reveals that a minority are genuine self-introductions mislabeled due to name inconsistencies in the source data, indicating that measured metrics modestly understate true performance.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) can leave small stylistic traces in text written with their help. The most discussed is the em-dash (U+2014), especially the unspaced form word---word, which is normal in typeset English prose but unusual in U.S. press writing, where AP style calls for spaced dashes. This study asks whether that trace is measurable in congressional press releases. In a preregistered design (OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U5NEY), 146,239 scraper-sourced releases from 480 House and Senate offices (2021-2025, the open congress-press dataset) were analyzed: density of unspaced prose-form em-dashes per 1,000 characters of cleaned text, Poisson/negative-binomial models with a length offset, clustering by office. Density stayed within 0.10-0.12 per 1,000 characters through 2021-2024, then rose to 0.217 in 2025, more than twice the four-year baseline; the share of releases with such an em-dash rose from ~13% to 24.8%. The primary frequency ratio (2023-2025 vs 2021-2022) was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28-1.93; exact registered cut-off: 1.528), just above the prespecified 1.5x threshold. The rise was net-new (hyphen density stable), held within authors (75.6% of 262 continuous offices increased; p ~ 1e-16) and in a closed panel of 224 offices, and survived falsification tests: three placebo cut-offs were null, the pipeline showed no step at the 2024/2025 boundary, and continuing offices carried the rise. A segmented regression finds no step at the ChatGPT cut-off but a clear post-period acceleration; the 2025 rise is symmetric across parties and chambers. Because the registered validation gate was formally breached, the full preregistered decision rule was not met; the interpretation (broad diffusion of LLM-assisted writing as the models matured) is offered as exploratory. The em-dash remains a population-level marker, not a per-release authorship detector, and the design supports no causal claim.

The spread of misinformation is widely perceived as a threat to democratic deliberation, yet how political elites' rhetorical commitments to truth shift alongside the rise of populist actors remains poorly understood. Analysing 4.5 million tweets and 59,170 parliamentary speeches by German political elites between 2015 and 2025, we measure evidence-based and intuition-based rhetoric using a validated distributed dictionary representation. Across both arenas, intuition-based language has become more prominent, and right-leaning actors consistently exhibit the lowest Evidence Minus Intuition (EMI) scores. The parliamentary entry of the extreme-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in 2017 coincides with sharp downward shifts in EMI across the broader chamber, while a more gradual decline is observed on Twitter. These findings document an association between far-right visibility and a changing approach to truth in elite discourse in a multiparty European democracy.

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.

This paper presents a speculative Human-Computer Interaction design proposal for encouraging geopolitical reflexivity amongst tech workers at geopolitically relevant technology companies. Recent scholarship in International Relations and Science and Technology Studies increasingly recognizes technology firms and their workers as geopolitical actors whose decisions shape international dynamics. However, existing Responsible Innovation and Responsible AI approaches rarely engage with the geopolitical narratives and imaginaries that underpin contemporary AI development. Building upon RI scholarship on reflexivity, reflective HCI, and creative HCI work on computational narratives, this paper proposes an AI-enabled interactive narrative system in which users engage with a speculative scenario centred on technology, power, and geopolitics. Through narrative interaction, archetype assignment, and socially scaffolded workshop reflection, the system aims to encourage target users to critically examine their assumptions, values, and positionality within broader sociotechnical systems. We argue that speculative narrative systems may offer a productive avenue for introducing geopolitical reflexivity into responsible technology initiatives without relying on prescriptive or moralising approaches.

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as agents in high-stakes settings, such as medical and legal systems, understanding their deceptive capabilities is fundamental to safety. Controlled social deduction games provide a reproducible proxy for isolating and evaluating these complex adversarial behaviors. We present the open-source benchmark framework ParliamentBench based on the game Secret Hitler to evaluate LLMs in scenarios that require deception, persuasion, and reasoning under information asymmetry. We evaluate 16 LLMs across 1,600 simulated matches playing each other, playing against humans, and compare them against a large set of online games. We introduce three novel metrics that isolate social deduction, reasoning, and deceptive consistency. Our experiments reveal that frontier models achieve strong performance across cooperative and deceptive roles, with a strong top-four cluster (GPT-5.4, Kimi K2.5, Grok 4.1 Fast, and DeepSeek 3.1 Terminus), whereas the weakest models fall short of random (33%) and simple algorithmic (45%) baselines. Most LLMs struggle to maintain a consistent deceptive persona throughout an entire game, with deception retention dropping below 50%.

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.

Large language models trained and aligned within different linguistic and regional ecosystems may frame the same political, cultural, and geopolitical entities in different ways. Such differences are often evaluated through sentiment, favorability, or stance, reducing model attitudes to a single positive-negative axis. We introduce REGARD, a study of what drives affective framing differences across LLMs on post-Soviet entities using target-directed Valence-Arousal-Dominance profiling. We query 19 models on 500 region-specific targets, score their responses with two independent LLM judges, GPT-4o-mini and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, and validate the measurements on a 300-item human-annotated subset. Post-hoc Ward-linkage clustering of all 19 models by affective and response-behavior profiles yields three behavioral clusters that cut across model origin, family, and parameter count. Generic-answer rate is strongly associated with lower arousal (r = -0.81) and with cluster placement: models that deflect evaluative prompts with templated responses cluster together at low arousal regardless of origin. These findings show that VAD profiling captures emotional intensity, a dimension of affective framing that is largely invisible to conventional sentiment-based evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview. This raises concerns beyond bias in AI: do LLMs grasp the emotional nuances conveyed via textual framing? In this work, we empirically evaluate how well an array of LLMs aligns with human emotional perception. Considering news headlines covering political and geopolitical conflicts, both human participants (n = 3011, a representative sample of the U.K. adult population, via a YouGov survey) and seven LLMs answered whether headlines evoked sympathy for a specified side in a conflict. We find that the correlation between AI and human evaluations varies across models, ranging from very high (0.789, GPT-5.2) to medium (0.4 ,Mistral Large 2512). Crucially, the leading models are broadly aligned with human judgments across all demographic subgroups, including age, gender, level of education, prior geopolitical knowledge, and participants' predispositions regarding the conflict, although there are statistically significant differences between groups. This research, with its robust design and large, demographically diverse dataset, offers the most comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' comprehension of news framing to date. Findings highlight an important, often-ignored aspect of differential alignment: even when aggregate performance is high, AI alignment is not universal -- it may correspond differently with demographic features and cultural norms. Considering or ignoring the need for differential alignment may therefore have significant implications for the development of ethical and useful AI systems.

Online encyclopedias shape political opinion and, through it, democratic discourse. In late 2025, Grokipedia was released, an encyclopedia written entirely by the LLM Grok. One motivation behind the project was to provide an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia, which has faced accusations of "left-wing" and "liberal" bias. But does an encyclopedia written by an LLM deliver greater neutrality, or does it simply embed a different ideology? We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia, analysing 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality along nine expert-coded ideology dimensions employing four LLM judges, Grok, Claude, Mistral, and DeepSeek. As the LLMs could themselves be biased, we also investigate patterns in their judgments. We find all LLM-judges, including Grok, to rate Grokipedia less neutral than Wikipedia. Both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups. Grokipedia particularly favours economically right-wing politicians and penalises socially liberal ones, while Wikipedia is rated as favourably biased towards the latter.

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.

Finetuning language models on small, curated datasets is standard practice for adapting them to specific policies or domains. We show that finetuning on narrow, factually-defensible, moderation-passing data can cause broad ideological shifts across unrelated domains, while preserving general capabilities. Training GPT-4.1 on right- or left-leaning economics Q&A yields matched ideological shifts on topics such as criminal justice, the environment, and cultural taste. The same effect appears with plausibly-deployed datasets such as workplace HR policy and practical finance queries, as well as on a science-pseudoscience axis where food-safety finetuning increases sycophantic agreement with users expressing false health beliefs. We call this phenomenon ideological generalisation and propose a methodology to measure two properties: breadth, how far the shift reaches across topics absent from training, and amplification, how much finetuning intensifies the shift relative to few-shot prompting on the same examples. We show that few-shot prompting indicates the direction of generalisation but finetuning pushes the model to further extremes, including to far out-of-distribution outputs such as endorsements of race-IQ connections and political violence. The effect replicates on Gemma-3, holds under judge-free evaluations and external benchmarks, survives mixing with generic data, and leaves GSM8K accuracy within $\pm 1$pp of the baseline.

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.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has been increasingly adopted to reduce hallucinations and strengthen the factual grounding of large language models (LLMs). While robustness to errors in the retrieval process has been explored, the impact of ideological bias on LLM outputs has been overlooked. For instance, if the retrieved material contains ideological positions, the RAG may transmit, amplify, or suppress such ideological discourses in its outputs. In this study, we address this issue by examining the influence of the RAG framework, comprising ideological discourses, in LLM-generated answers. To this end, we applied Lexical Multidimensional Analysis (LMDA) on a corpus of 1,117 COVID-19 treatment articles, identifying three ideological discourses. This corpus is then used as the external knowledge source for the RAG. We assessed several LLMs by having the models answer ideological questions at different sampling temperatures. The generated texts were assessed semantically and lexically based on their similarities with ideological reference texts. Our findings show that the RAG framework is prone to transferring ideological discourses into LLM responses, with sampling temperature having a measurable impact on the strength of this transfer. Discoursive alignment between generated answers and the reference text is highest at moderate temperatures, where models balance stochasticity with retrieval grounding, and drops at low temperatures, indicating that overly deterministic sampling suppresses discourse transfer.

A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.

The rapid proliferation of online polarization threatens social cohesion, necessitating robust automated detection systems that operate effectively across diverse linguistic contexts. This paper presents our system description for the POLAR Shared Task 2026, focusing on the detection and characterization of polarized discourse in English and Hausa. We propose a hybrid modeling strategy: for English binary detection, we leverage the monolingual strength of \textbf{DeBERTa}, while for Hausa and all fine-grained subtasks (Types and Manifestations), we utilize \textbf{AfroXLMR-Social}. This domain-adapted multilingual model proved critical for capturing the nuances of polarization in social media text. To further address computational constraints and data scarcity, we implement Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) and textual data augmentation via \texttt{nlpaug}. We report competitive results across all three subtasks, demonstrating that model selection tailored to specific subtask requirements yields the best balance of performance.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to summarize and evaluate policy-relevant information, but it remains unclear whether their judgments are implicitly shaped by geopolitical cues. I study this question with an endorsement experiment in which four LLMs evaluate the same international economic and security policies after each policy is randomly described as supported by the United States, the European Union, China, or Russia. In the numeric-only condition, GPT-5, Claude Sonnet, and Gemini rate China- and Russia-endorsed policies substantially lower than identical policies endorsed by the United States or the European Union; DeepSeek is the main exception. A second condition asks models to provide a short justification with the score. This request leaves the broad Western/non-Western gap intact for GPT-5 and Claude Sonnet, attenuates Gemini's penalties, and sharply activates China and Russia penalties in DeepSeek. The justifications indicate that Western endorsement is often treated as a credibility cue, whereas Chinese and Russian endorsement is treated as a cue for data security, sovereignty, surveillance, or geopolitical risk. These findings show that LLM policy evaluations can depend on the identity of a foreign endorser even when policy content is held fixed.

Filled pauses (FPs) are a universal feature of spontaneous speech, yet most studies rely on small, single-language corpora, limiting the generalisability of their findings. We analyse ~4,000 hours of parliamentary speech across four related Slavic languages (Croatian, Czech, Polish, Serbian). FP occurrence is obtained via transformer-based automatic detection, while FP rate is modelled using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) with Mundlak correction to distinguish within- from between- speaker effects. We replicate a negative association of age and speech rate with FP rate, but find that gender effects are language-specific and directionally opposite to most prior literature. Novel analyses of sentiment, political orientation, and power status reveal a consistent positive association between sentiment and FP rate, alongside parliament-specific modulation by orientation and power status, with opposition speakers tending toward lower FP rates than governing coalition speakers.

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?

We present HistoriQA-ThirdRepublic: a French-language dataset of multi-hop historical questions derived from parliamentary debates and newspapers of the French Third Republic. Designed in collaboration with a historian, the corpus captures complex reasoning patterns typical of historical inquiry, including cross-source synthesis, temporal reasoning, and the integration of sparse evidence. The dataset is made of 1782 questions and emphasizes multi-hop connections across heterogeneous historical documents, providing a resource for evaluating retrieval-augmented and large language model systems in domain-specific contexts. We describe the methodology for constructing the corpus, including the selection and alignment of sources, question validation, and metadata integration. While the dataset focuses on French historical documents, our methodology can be readily adapted to other languages and national corpora. Finally, we demonstrate how the corpus can support realistic evaluation scenarios for multi-hop question answering, bridging the gap between NLP benchmarks and the needs of historical scholarship.

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.

Traditional visual data storytelling relies on binary graphics that depict two simplified groups in conflict. This can increase political polarization by oversimplifying intra-group disagreements and erasing ambiguity and shared ideas or values. This can inadvertently foster "us versus them" thinking. Intentional, pluralistic design choices for AI-enabled digital platforms can produce visualizations that emphasize nuance, opinion distribution, and intergroup commonalities. To demonstrate this potential, we examine deliberative technologies that map high-dimensional opinion spaces and highlight areas of both consensus and dissensus. The paper highlights the We the People deliberation conducted by Jigsaw and the Napolitan Institute in September 2025, which engaged over 2,400 Americans across all 435 congressional districts in an AI-supported, asynchronous dialogue regarding freedom and equality. By utilizing AI to synthesize long-form, text-based participant inputs into interactive "opinion landscapes," the initiative provided an alternative format for pluralistic data storytelling that humanized diverse viewpoints and revealed hidden areas of substantial broad consensus. The paper concludes that shifting from divisive, contrast-heavy visual frameworks to distribution-focused, interactive models represents a highly scalable, low-cost intervention capable of bridging perceptual gaps and cultivating a more resilient, collaborative democratic culture.

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.

Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment (N = 801; 32,040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48% in OpenAlex and 32% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database r = 0.96, p < 10^-8). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; r = 0.77-0.84), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also saw the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English and non-English authors. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift -0.18 Likert units, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.14]; d_z = -0.28, p < 10^-20), funding willingness (d_z = -0.12) and policy support (d_z = -0.08), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency (d_z = +0.07). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

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.

Detecting online polarization remains a critical challenge, particularly in multilingual and multicultural contexts where intergroup hostility is prevalent. The problem is particularly challenging due to the data scarcity for these tasks in the low-resource languages. Identifying such phenomena has become an active area of research and is addressed in SemEval-2026 Task 9: Multilingual, Multicultural Online Polarization Detection. To address this problem we propose an architecture that leverages LaBSE embeddings - an unconventional choice typically reserved for retrieval tasks, to obtain strong cross-lingual learning which enhances scores in low-resource language by a score up to 0.2 macro F1. Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive ablation study evaluating the performance of diverse encoder models in the Qwen model family within a retrieval-based prompting framework. Our code will be soon available at https://github.com/carrycurious/PolarMind.

The increasing availability of large-scale textual corpora has opened new possibilities for data-driven, quantitative approaches to historical analysis using Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, diachronic corpora with historical relevance from the pre-digital era remain scarce and often incomplete. We present a quantitative approach to historical analysis based on the reconstruction and exploration of a diachronic corpus of around 600,000 articles from the Italian newspaper "La Repubblica", covering all the articles published from the 1st of January 1985 to the 31st of December 2000 - a period of major political, social, and geopolitical change in Italy and globally. Using NLP techniques, we analyze the text at both lexical and semantic levels; we then apply tools from complex systems and statistical physics to trace shifts in media discourse over time. This allows us to detect key transition periods, such as the transition from the First Republic to the Second Republic in Italy, or major international conflicts like the Gulf War or the Kosovo War, without relying on prior labeling. The results show how combining computational linguistics with ideas from complex systems can offer new quantitative insight into historical changes, opening up new paths for studying the dynamics of media and society through large-scale textual data.

In this paper, we evaluate the extent of undisclosed LLM-generated content in texts from the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Sweden. In many areas, such as in journalism or in academic writing, there are often requirements to clearly disclose whether AI tools, such as LLMs, have been used. In the case of parliamentary texts, the guidelines on disclosure of AI use are more vague. However, in order to maintain transparency and retain public trust, it is generally recommended that parliamentarians should state whether or not they have used AI when writing texts, such as parliamentary motions. Here, we train an interpretable (glass-box) text classifier using pre-LLM parliamentary texts and LLM-generated versions of such texts. We then apply the classifier to a test set containing recent parliamentary texts, finding a steady increase in undisclosed LLM use, in both parliaments, from 2022 onwards.

Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.