# Digital Pantheon: Simulating and Auditing Coalition Formation with LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15095 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.15095/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 24 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02427/) (2023)
- [PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02547/) (2023)
- [Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16416/) (2025)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Exchange-of-Thought: Enhancing Large Language Model Capabilities through Cross-Model Communication](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.01823/) (2023)
- [A Review of Prominent Paradigms for LLM-Based Agents: Tool Use (Including RAG), Planning, and Feedback Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05804/) (2024)
- [Voting or Consensus? Decision-Making in Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19130/) (2025)
- [Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20267/) (2024)
- [Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.11035/) (2025)
- [Persona is a Double-edged Sword: Mitigating the Negative Impact of Role-playing Prompts in Zero-shot Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08631/) (2024)
- [MALLM: Multi-Agent Large Language Models Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.11656/) (2025)
- [Towards Responsible and Explainable AI Agents with Consensus-Driven Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.21699/) (2025)
- [Modelling Political Coalition Negotiations Using LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11712/) (2024)
- [PoliTune: Analyzing the Impact of Data Selection and Fine-Tuning on Economic and Political Biases in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.08699/) (2024)
- [Political Actor Agent: Simulating Legislative System for Roll Call Votes Prediction with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.07144/) (2024)
- [Advancing AI Negotiations: A Large-Scale Autonomous Negotiation Competition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.06416/) (2025)
- [AI-Generated Compromises for Coalition Formation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06837/) (2025)
- [PoliCon: Evaluating LLMs on Achieving Diverse Political Consensus Objectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19558/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.