Despite demonstrating remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks, large language models (LLMs) have also been found to frequently produce outputs that are incomplete or selectively omit key information. In sensitive domains, such omissions can result in significant harm comparable to that posed by factual inaccuracies, including hallucinations. In this study, we address the challenge of evaluating the comprehensiveness of LLM-generated texts, focusing on the detection of missing information or underrepresented viewpoints. We investigate three automated evaluation strategies: (1) an NLI-based method that decomposes texts into atomic statements and uses natural language inference (NLI) to identify missing links, (2) a Q&A-based approach that extracts question-answer pairs and compares responses across sources, and (3) an end-to-end method that directly identifies missing content using LLMs. Our experiments demonstrate the surprising effectiveness of the simple end-to-end approach compared to more complex methods, though at the cost of reduced robustness, interpretability and result granularity. We further assess the comprehensiveness of responses from several popular open-weight LLMs when answering user queries based on multiple sources.

Randomized experiments are the preferred approach for evaluating the effects of interventions, but they are costly and often yield estimates with substantial uncertainty. On the other hand, in silico experiments leveraging foundation models offer a cost-effective alternative that can potentially attain higher statistical precision. However, the benefits of in silico experiments come with a significant risk: statistical inferences are not valid if the models fail to accurately predict experimental responses to interventions. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that integrates the predictions from multiple foundation models with experimental data while preserving valid statistical inference. Our estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal, with asymptotic variance no larger than the standard estimator based on experimental data alone. Importantly, these statistical properties hold even when model predictions are arbitrarily biased. Empirical results across several randomized experiments show that our estimator offers substantial precision gains, equivalent to a reduction of up to 20% in the sample size needed to match the same precision as the standard estimator based on experimental data alone.