Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a multi-agent framework that enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate and audit political coalition formation by integrating Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). By instilling party-specific personas and grounding agents in their official manifestos, the framework effectively reconciles ideological alignment with factual accuracy, operationalized through simulations of the 2019 Flemish election. The findings reveal that the model not only predicts coalition outcomes with high fidelity but also provides interpretable insights into the negotiation process, demonstrating that manifesto-anchored lineage can reliably forecast real-world agreements while hallucinated content fails to do so.
Coalition negotiations can be accurately simulated by LLMs, revealing that ideological alignment significantly influences outcomes in political contexts.
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.