Digital personas powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as substitutes for human survey respondents, yet it remains unclear when they can reliably approximate human survey findings. We answer this question using the LISS panel, constructing personas from respondents' background variables and pre-2023 survey histories, then testing them against the same respondents' held-out post-cutoff answers. Across four persona architectures, three LLMs, and two prediction tasks, we assess performance at the question, respondent, distributional, equity, and clustering levels. Digital personas improve alignment with human response distributions, especially in domains tied to stable attributes and values, but remain limited for individual prediction and fail to recover multivariate respondent structure. Retrieval-augmented architectures provide the clearest gains, but performance depends more on human response structure than on model choice: personas perform best for low-variability questions and common respondent patterns, and worst for subjective, heterogeneous, or rare responses. Our results provide practical guidance on when digital personas could be appropriate for survey research and when human validation remains necessary.

Although the fairness community has recognized the importance of data, re-searchers in the area primarily rely on UCIAdult when it comes to tabular data. Derived from a 1994 USCensus survey, this dataset has appeared in hundreds of research papers where it served as the basis for the development and comparison of many algorithmic fairness interventions. We reconstruct a superset of the UCI Adult data from available USCensus sources and reveal idiosyncrasies of the UCIAdult dataset that limit its external validity. Our primary contribution is asuite of new datasets derived from USCensus surveys that extend the existing data ecosystem for research on fair machine learning. We create prediction tasks relating to income, employment, health, transportation, and housing. The data span multiple years and all states of the United States, allowing researchers to studytemporal shift and geographic variation. We highlight a broad initial sweep of new empirical insights relating to trade-offs between fairness criteria, performance of algorithmic interventions, and the role of distribution shift based on our new datasets. Our findings inform ongoing debates, challenge some existing narratives, and point to future research directions.

Cross-validation (CV) is commonly used to estimate predictive risk when independent test data are unavailable. Its validity depends on the assumption that validation tasks are sampled from the same distribution as prediction tasks encountered during deployment. In spatial prediction and other settings with structured data, this assumption is frequently violated, leading to biased estimates of deployment risk. We propose Target-Weighted CV (TWCV), an estimator of deployment risk that accounts for discrepancies between validation and deployment task distributions, thus accounting for (1) covariate shift and (2) task-difficulty shift. We characterize prediction tasks by descriptors such as covariates and spatial configuration. TWCV assigns weights to validation losses such that the weighted empirical distribution of validation tasks matches the corresponding distribution over a target domain. The weights are obtained via calibration weighting, yielding an importance-weighted estimator that targets deployment risk. Since TWCV requires adequate coverage of the deployment distribution's support, we combine it with spatially buffered resampling that diversifies the task difficulty distribution. In a simulation study, conventional as well as spatial estimators exhibit substantial bias depending on sampling, whereas buffered TWCV remains approximately unbiased across scenarios. A case study in environmental pollution mapping further confirms that discrepancies between validation and deployment task distributions can affect performance assessment, and that buffered TWCV better reflects the prediction task over the target domain. These results establish task distribution mismatch as a primary source of CV bias in spatial prediction and show that calibration weighting combined with a suitable validation task generator provides a viable approach to estimating predictive risk under dataset shift.

Accurately identifying and organizing textual content is crucial for the automation of document processing in the field of form understanding. Existing datasets, such as FUNSD and XFUND, support entity classification and relationship prediction tasks but are typically limited to local and entity-level annotations. This limitation overlooks the hierarchically structured representation of documents, constraining comprehensive understanding of complex forms. To address this issue, we present the SRFUND, a hierarchically structured multi-task form understanding benchmark. SRFUND provides refined annotations on top of the original FUNSD and XFUND datasets, encompassing five tasks: (1) word to text-line merging, (2) text-line to entity merging, (3) entity category classification, (4) item table localization, and (5) entity-based full-document hierarchical structure recovery. We meticulously supplemented the original dataset with missing annotations at various levels of granularity and added detailed annotations for multi-item table regions within the forms. Additionally, we introduce global hierarchical structure dependencies for entity relation prediction tasks, surpassing traditional local key-value associations. The SRFUND dataset includes eight languages including English, Chinese, Japanese, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, making it a powerful tool for cross-lingual form understanding. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that the SRFUND dataset presents new challenges and significant opportunities in handling diverse layouts and global hierarchical structures of forms, thus providing deep insights into the field of form understanding.