Polistemics: Evaluating LLMs as Information Mediators in Politics & Elections

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25953v2
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 06:57:43 GMT
• Title: Polistemics: Evaluating LLMs as Information Mediators in Politics & Elections
• Abstract summary: We introduce Polistemics, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating LLMs as mediators of political information in elections.<n>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.
• Score: 1.1724565818034949
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Who Would You Vote For? Auditing Political Alignment in LLMs: An Italian Case-Study [0.0]
  We investigate whether and how Large Language Models express preferences toward political parties and political leaders.<n>Rather than attempting to infer the models' "true" political beliefs, we focus on their observable behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:47:06Z)
• Uncovering Political Bias in Large Language Models using Parliamentary Voting Records [2.272052150526026]
  This paper introduces a general methodology for constructing political bias benchmarks.<n>We instantiate this methodology in three national case studies.<n>We assess ideological tendencies and political entity bias in LLM behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T18:18:25Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Large Means Left: Political Bias in Large Language Models Increases with Their Number of Parameters [0.571853823214391]
  Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly used by many as a primary source of information for various topics.<n>LLMs frequently make factual errors, fabricate data (hallucinations), or present biases, exposing users to misinformation and influencing opinions.<n>We quantify the political bias of popular LLMs in the context of the recent vote of the German Bundestag using the score produced by the Wahl-O-Mat.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T13:18:41Z)
• Better Aligned with Survey Respondents or Training Data? Unveiling Political Leanings of LLMs on U.S. Supreme Court Cases [24.622980403581018]
  We investigate the extent to which Large Language Models' political leanings reflect memorized patterns from their pretraining corpora.<n>As a case study, we focus on probing the political leanings of LLMs in 32 US Supreme Court cases, addressing contentious topics such as abortion and voting rights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:16:17Z)
• Fact or Fiction? Can LLMs be Reliable Annotators for Political Truths? [2.321323878201932]
  Political misinformation poses challenges to democratic processes, shaping public opinion and trust in media. This study investigates the use of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) as reliable annotators for detecting political factuality in news articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T18:36:33Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Assessing Political Bias in Large Language Models [0.624709220163167]
  We evaluate the political bias of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) concerning political issues within the European Union (EU) from a German voter's perspective. We show that larger models, such as Llama3-70B, tend to align more closely with left-leaning political parties, while smaller models often remain neutral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T15:30:18Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.