Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Persona-driven Simulation of Voting Behavior in the European Parliament with Large Language Models

Maximilian Kreutner, Marlene Lutz, Markus Strohmaier · Jun 13, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Coding Simulation Env
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias. At the same time, so-called persona or identity prompts have been shown to produce LLM behavior that aligns with socioeconomic groups with which the base model is not aligned. In this work, we analyze whether zero-shot persona prompting with limited information can accurately predict individual voting decisions and, by aggregation, accurately predict the positions of European groups on a diverse set of policies. We evaluate whether predictions are stable in response to counterfactual arguments, different persona prompts, and generation methods. Finally, we find that we can simulate the voting behavior of Members of the European Parliament reasonably well, achieving a weighted F1 score of approximately 0.793. Our persona dataset of politicians in the 2024 European Parliament and our code are available at the following url: https://github.com/dess-mannheim/european_parliament_simulation.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

37/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1, F1 weighted

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1f1 weighted

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) display remarkable capabilities to understand or even produce political discourse but have been found to consistently exhibit a progressive left-leaning bias.
  • At the same time, so-called persona or identity prompts have been shown to produce LLM behavior that aligns with socioeconomic groups with which the base model is not aligned.
  • In this work, we analyze whether zero-shot persona prompting with limited information can accurately predict individual voting decisions and, by aggregation, accurately predict the positions of European groups on a diverse set of policies.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

F1

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We evaluate whether predictions are stable in response to counterfactual arguments, different persona prompts, and generation methods.
  • Finally, we find that we can simulate the voting behavior of Members of the European Parliament reasonably well, achieving a weighted F1 score of approximately 0.793.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, f1 weighted

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now