To Redact, or not to Redact? A Local LLM Approach to Deliberative Process Privilege Classification

Government transparency laws, like the Freedom of Information (FOIA) acts in the United States and United Kingdom, and the Woo (Open Government Act) in the Netherlands, grant citizens the right to directly request documents from the government. As these documents might contain sensitive information, such as personal information or threats to national security, the laws allow governments to redact sensitive parts of the documents prior to release. We build on prior research to perform automatic sensitivity classification for the FOIA Exemption 5 deliberative process privilege using Large Language Models (LLMs). However, processing documents not yet cleared for review via third-party cloud APIs is often legally or politically untenable. Therefore, in this work, we perform sensitivity classification with a small, local model, deployable on consumer-grade hardware (Qwen3.5 9B). We compare eight variants of applying LLMs for sentence classification, using well-known prompting techniques, and find that a combination of Chain-of-Thought prompting and few-shot prompting with error-based examples outperforms classification models of earlier work in terms of recall and F2 score. This method also closely approaches the performance of a widely-used, cost-efficient commercial model (Gemini 2.5 Flash). In an additional analysis, we find that sentences that are predicted as deliberative contain more verbs that indicate the expression of opinions, and are more often phrased in in first-person. Above all, deliberativeness seems characterized by the presence of a combination of multiple indicators, in particular the combination of first-person words with a verb for expressing opinion.

Do Large Language Models Solve the Problems of Agent-Based Modeling? A Critical Review of Generative Social Simulations

Recent advancements in AI have reinvigorated Agent-Based Models (ABMs), as the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to the emergence of ``generative ABMs'' as a novel approach to simulating social systems. While ABMs offer means to bridge micro-level interactions with macro-level patterns, they have long faced criticisms from social scientists, pointing to e.g., lack of realism, computational complexity, and challenges of calibrating and validating against empirical data. This paper reviews the generative ABM literature to assess how this new approach adequately addresses these long-standing criticisms. Our findings show that studies show limited awareness of historical debates. Validation remains poorly addressed, with many studies relying solely on subjective assessments of model `believability', and even the most rigorous validation failing to adequately evidence operational validity. We argue that there are reasons to believe that LLMs will exacerbate rather than resolve the long-standing challenges of ABMs. The black-box nature of LLMs moreover limit their usefulness for disentangling complex emergent causal mechanisms. While generative ABMs are still in a stage of early experimentation, these findings question of whether and how the field can transition to the type of rigorous modeling needed to contribute to social scientific theory.