PoliCon: Evaluating LLMs on Achieving Diverse Political Consensus Objectives
Zhaowei Zhang, Xiaobo Wang, Minghua Yi, Mengmeng Wang, Fengshuo Bai, Zilong Zheng, Yipeng Kang, Yaodong Yang
Abstract
Achieving political consensus is crucial yet challenging for the effective functioning of social governance. However, although frontier AI systems represented by large language models (LLMs) have developed rapidly in recent years, their capabilities in this scope are still understudied. In this paper, we introduce PoliCon, a novel benchmark constructed from 2,225 high-quality deliberation records of the European Parliament over 13 years, ranging from 2009 to 2022, to evaluate the ability of LLMs to draft consensus resolutions based on divergent party positions under varying collective decision-making contexts and political requirements. Specifically, PoliCon incorporates four factors to build each task environment for finding different political consensus: specific political issues, political goals, participating parties, and power structures based on seat distribution. We also developed an evaluation framework based on social choice theory for PoliCon, which simulates the real voting outcomes of different political parties to assess whether LLM-generated resolutions meet the requirements of the predetermined political consensus. Our experimental results demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models remain undersatisfied with complex tasks like passing resolutions by a two-thirds majority and addressing security issues, while uncovering their inherent partisan biases and revealing some behaviors LLMs show to achieve the consensus, such as prioritizing the stance of the dominant party instead of uniting smaller parties, which highlights PoliCon's promise as an effective platform for studying LLMs' ability to promote political consensus. The code and dataset are released at PoliCon Website.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 192a92b7-144a-4d13-9bda-dbd820900c4aBuilds on7
- Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language ModelsMrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud et al.ICLR 2024 · 762 citations
- How Well Can LLMs Negotiate? NegotiationArena Platform and AnalysisFederico Bianchi, Patrick John Chia, Mert Yüksekgönül, Jacopo Tagliabue et al.ICML 2024 · 90 citations
- An Annotated Corpus of Reference Resolution for Interpreting Common GroundingTakuma Udagawa, Akiko AizawaAAAI 2020 · 10 citations
- Benchmarking LLMs for Political Science: A United Nations PerspectiveYueqing Liang, Liangwei Yang, Chen Wang, Congying Xia et al.AAAI 2026 · 5 citations
- Linear Representations of Political Perspective Emerge in Large Language ModelsJunsol Kim, James Evans, Aaron ScheinICLR 2025
Related papers
- Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferencesMichiel A. Bakker, Martin J. Chadwick, Hannah Sheahan, Michael Henry Tessler et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 349 citations
- CAR-bench: Evaluating the Consistency and Limit-Awareness of LLM Agents under Real-World UncertaintyJohannes Kirmayr, Lukas Stappen, Elisabeth AndréACL 2026 · 5 citations
- ACADREASON: Exploring the Limits of Reasoning Models with Academic Research ProblemsXin Gui, King Zhu, JinCheng Ren, Qianben Chen et al.ICLR 2026 · 1 citation
- Assessing Reliability and Political Bias In LLMs' Judgements of Formal and Material Inferences With Partisan ConclusionsReto Gubelmann, Ghassen KarrayACL 2025
- A Game-Theoretica Negotiation Framework for Cross-Cultural ConsensusGuoxi Zhang, Jiawei Chen, Tianzhuo Yang, Jiaming Ji et al.ACL 2026
