Large language models (LLMs) can generate survey responses at low cost, but their reliability varies substantially across questions and is unknown before data collection. Deploying LLMs in surveys still requires costly human responses for verification and correction. How should a limited human-labeling budget be allocated across questions in real time? We propose an adaptive allocation algorithm that learns which questions are hardest for the LLM while simultaneously collecting human responses. Each human label serves a dual role: it improves the estimate for that question and reveals how well the LLM predicts human responses on it. The algorithm directs more budget to questions where the LLM is least reliable, without requiring any prior knowledge of question-level LLM accuracy. We prove that the allocation gap relative to the best possible allocation vanishes as the budget grows, and validate the approach on both synthetic data and a real survey dataset with 68 questions and over 2000 respondents. On real survey data, the standard practice of allocating human labels uniformly across questions wastes 10--12% of the budget relative to the optimal; our algorithm reduces this waste to 2--6%, and the advantage grows as questions become more heterogeneous in LLM prediction quality. The algorithm achieves the same estimation quality as traditional uniform sampling with fewer human samples, requires no pilot study, and is backed by formal performance guarantees validated on real survey data. More broadly, the framework applies whenever scarce human oversight must be allocated across tasks where LLM reliability is unknown.

Human word associations are a well-known method of gaining insight into the internal mental lexicon, but the responses spontaneously offered by human participants to word cues are not always predictable as they may be influenced by personal experience, emotions or individual cognitive styles. The ability to form associative links between seemingly unrelated concepts can be the driving mechanisms of creativity. We perform a comparison of the associative behaviour of humans compared to large language models. More specifically, we explore associations to emotionally loaded words and try to determine whether large language models generate associations in a similar way to humans. We find that the overlap between humans and LLMs is moderate, but also that the associations of LLMs tend to amplify the underlying emotional load of the stimulus, and that they tend to be more predictable and less creative than human ones.

Polite speech poses a fundamental alignment challenge for large language models (LLMs). Humans deploy a rich repertoire of linguistic strategies to balance informational and social goals -- from positive approaches that build rapport (compliments, expressions of interest) to negative strategies that minimize imposition (hedging, indirectness). We investigate whether LLMs employ a similarly context-sensitive repertoire by comparing human and LLM responses in both constrained and open-ended production tasks. We find that larger models ($\ge$70B parameters) successfully replicate key preferences from the computational pragmatics literature, and human evaluators surprisingly prefer LLM-generated responses in open-ended contexts. However, further linguistic analyses reveal that models disproportionately rely on negative politeness strategies even in positive contexts, potentially leading to misinterpretations. While modern LLMs demonstrate an impressive handle on politeness strategies, these subtle differences raise important questions about pragmatic alignment in AI systems.

Surveys provide valuable insights into public opinion and behavior, but their execution is costly and slow. Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as a scalable, low-cost substitute for human respondents, but their outputs are often biased and yield invalid estimates. We study the interplay between synthesis methods that use LLMs to generate survey responses and rectification methods that debias population estimates, and explore how human responses are best allocated between them. Using two panel surveys with questions on nutrition, politics, and economics, we find that synthesis alone introduces substantial bias (24-86%), whereas combining it with rectification reduces bias below 5% and increases effective sample size by up to 14%. Overall, we challenge the common practice of using all human responses for fine-tuning, showing that under a fixed budget, allocating most to rectification results in far more effective estimation.

Understanding how diverse individuals and communities respond to persuasive messaging holds significant potential for advancing personalized and socially aware machine learning. While Large Vision and Language Models (VLMs) offer promise, their ability to emulate nuanced, heterogeneous human responses, particularly in high stakes domains like public health, remains underexplored due in part to the lack of comprehensive, multimodal dataset. We introduce PHORECAST (Public Health Outreach REceptivity and CAmpaign Signal Tracking), a multimodal dataset curated to enable fine-grained prediction of both individuallevel behavioral responses and community-wide engagement patterns to health messaging. This dataset supports tasks in multimodal understanding, response prediction, personalization, and social forecasting, allowing rigorous evaluation of how well modern AI systems can emulate, interpret, and anticipate heterogeneous public sentiment and behavior. By providing a new dataset to enable AI advances for public health, PHORECAST aims to catalyze the development of models that are not only more socially aware but also aligned with the goals of adaptive and inclusive health communication

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings: either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses.

LLMs are emerging tools for simulating human behavior in business, economics, and social science, offering a lower-cost complement to laboratory experiments, field studies, and surveys. This paper evaluates how well LLMs replicate human behavior in operations management. Using nine published experiments in behavioral operations, we assess two criteria: replication of hypothesis-test outcomes and distributional alignment via Wasserstein distance. LLMs reproduce most hypothesis-level effects, capturing key decision biases, but their response distributions diverge from human data, including for strong commercial models. We also test two lightweight interventions -- chain-of-thought prompting and hyperparameter tuning -- which reduce misalignment and can sometimes let smaller or open-source models match or surpass larger systems.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Interactive intelligent agents are being integrated across society. Despite achieving human-like capabilities, humans' responses to these agents remain poorly understood, with research fragmented across disciplines. We conducted a first systematic synthesis comparing a range of psychological and behavioural responses in matched human-agent vs. human-human dyadic interactions. A total of 162 eligible studies (146 contributed to the meta-analysis; 468 effect sizes) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, which integrated frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Our results indicate that individuals exhibited less prosocial behaviour and moral engagement when interacting with agents vs. humans. They attributed less agency and responsibility to agents, perceiving them as less competent, likeable, and socially present. In contrast, individuals' social alignment (i.e., alignment or adaptation of internal states and behaviours with partners), trust in partners, personal agency, task performance, and interaction experiences were generally comparable when interacting with agents vs. humans. We observed high effect-size heterogeneity for many subjective responses (i.e., social perceptions of partners, subjective trust, and interaction experiences), suggesting context-dependency of partner effects. By examining the characteristics of studies, participants, partners, interaction scenarios, and response measures, we also identified several moderators shaping partner effects. Overall, functional behaviours and interactive experiences with agents can resemble those with humans, whereas fundamental social attributions and moral/prosocial concerns lag in human-agent interactions. Agents are thus afforded instrumental value on par with humans but lack comparable intrinsic value, providing practical implications for agent design and regulation.

Social scientists are now using large language models to create " silicon samples" - synthetic datasets intended to stand in for human respondents, aimed at revolutionising human subjects research. However, there are many analytic choices which must be made to produce these samples. Though many of these choices are defen sible, their impact on sample quality is poorly understood . I map out these analytic choices and demonstrate how a very small number of decisions can dramatically change the correspondence between silicon samples and human data. Configurations (N = 252) varied substantially in their capacity to estimate (i) rank ordering of participants, (ii) response distributions, and (iii) between - scale correlations. Most critically, configurations were not consistent in quality: those that performed well on one dimension often performed poorly on another, implying that there i s no "one - size - fits - all" configuration that optimises the accuracy of these samples. I call for greater attention to the threat of analytic flexibility in using silicon samples. Generative large language models (LLMs) have ushered in a sea change within the social sciences. The capacity of these models to produce sensical natural language output to queries, as well as their flexibility, efficiency, and generalisability, has led re searchers to explore their use in tasks across the research process. One of the most ambitious proposed uses of LLMs in this respect has been to use them as simulated research participants to determine how human participants might respond to a particular context, set of survey questions, or intervention (Cui et al., 2025). This is based on the tacit assumption that, on some level, the corpuses of data which LLMs are trained on may enable them to approximate similar data - generating processes to those which underpin human responses (Z. If achievable, this could have a transformative impact on the social sciences.