arXiv Computation and Language By Saber Zerhoudi

Wrong Together: Shared Bias in User Simulation

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper investigates whether disagreement among user simulators can flag unreliable estimates of group response proportions and group differences. Using six language‑model simulators on 60 questions across 12 countries, disagreement more accurately predicts invalidity for group differences (AUC 0.87) than for single group proportions (AUC 0.71). The authors find that shared bias among simulators can obscure errors, but correcting for this bias reduces prediction error without altering disagreement signals.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Sep 18

Language-model groups overstate consensus when replaying human deliberation on a reasoning task

The study compares human deliberation in Wason selection tasks with large language model (LLM) agent groups that are seeded with participants’ pre-discussion beliefs. Across various scoring definitions, human consensus rates ranged from 24.0% to 57.0%, whereas LLM agents consistently achieved higher consensus, with gaps of 34–44 percentage points in two sensitivity analyses. Even when early stopping was removed or memorizable answers were eliminated, LLM groups still reached near-unanimous agreement, often on incorrect answers, indicating that simulated consensus does not reflect collective accuracy.

By Tengfei Shao
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 30

Beyond the Mean: Three-Axis Fidelity for Aligning LLM-Based Survey Simulators from Small Pilot Data

arXiv:2606. 28963v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate social survey responses, yet their outputs exhibit systematic biases: marginal distributions are skewed, response variance is poorly calibrated, and predictor-outcome relationships are attenuated.

By Eun Cheol Choi, Youngrae Kim, Prabhu Pugalenthi, Hong-En Chen, Bo-Ruei Huang
arXiv AI
Sep 30

Population Fidelity: Evaluating Population Representativeness in LLMs

The paper introduces Population Fidelity, an evaluation framework for assessing how well large language models (LLMs) represent human population attitudes. It focuses on three dimensions: group-level accuracy, between-group variation, and the structure of that variation. Using the framework, the authors replicate a prior study on machine bias and test cultural fine-tuning, finding that while fine-tuning improves overall alignment, it does not enhance representation of within-population differences.

By Neemias B. da Silva, Martin Lukk, Ali Sutani, Abhishek Moturu, Harris Yang, Daniel Silver, Matt Ratto, Thiago H. Silva