The study investigates how demographic identity is represented in a language model, using representational similarity analysis against Pew survey data across 169 demographic cells. It finds that standard last‑token read‑outs underestimate the model’s fidelity, while specific attention heads (notably L11 H16) capture demographic structure more accurately, though race‑based types remain weak. Causal interventions reveal that high fidelity does not guarantee causal use, and a 128‑dimensional probe of a single head improves alignment with survey truth but fails to recover per‑question group ordering.
arXiv:2607. 18310v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Synthetic-population tools increasingly run every individual as an independent large language model (LLM) agent.
By Gurkan Ozkan
arXiv:2609.15849v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM per...
By Ahmed Wali, Hassaan Tayyab
arXiv:2609.14754v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Causal claims about large language model (LLM) internals rest on measurements. Those might include a projection, a cosine, an ablation delta, or an i...
By Orion Reblitz-Richardson
arXiv:2605.30381v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: When a language model is fine-tuned to produce systematically incorrect responses, does this training leave a structured, linearly recoverabl...
By Vahideh Zolfaghari
arXiv:2607. 13568v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can a language model estimate its familiarity with an entity before generating an answer?
By Grzegorz Brzezinka
A 0.6B language model consistently answers YES to 1,200 logical tests, yet its behavior shows no discrimination. Linear probes reveal the correct verdict with high AUC (0.96) and transfer to unseen structures, but a single scalar readout fails due to a saturated decision threshold offset by +4.6 σ. Adjusting this threshold restores behavior accuracy from 50 % to 81 % and improves higher‑scale models, demonstrating that miscalibrated readouts, not hidden knowledge loss, drive performance gaps.
By Gnaneswar Villuri, Hashmath Shaik, Alex Doboli
arXiv:2604. 17359v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Language models asked to simulate psychiatric patients produce cases that survive inspection one at a time and populations that match no real one.
By Patrick Keough
arXiv:2606. 05976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources.
By Kuan-Yen Chen, Fang-Yi Su, Jung-Hsien Chiang
arXiv:2607.02368v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Language models prompted with cultural personas increasingly stand in for human respondents in cross-cultural research. Their responses separ...
By Yuan Yuan
arXiv:2607. 09306v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Whether a language model behaves as it claims is a judgement on which independent human raters cannot agree (Fleiss kappa = 0.
By Kwan Soo Shin, In Seok Kang, Yunkyung Min, Munho Lee
arXiv:2608. 14606v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic survey respondents, but existing evaluations ask whether answers look plausible at the individual level.
By Mantas Lukauskas, Viktorija \v{S}arkauskait\.e