Abstract:Silicon sampling-using large language models (LLMs) to simulate human survey respondents-has emerged as a promising approach for augmenting traditional survey research. However, most evaluations rely on distributional comparisons rather than individual-level prediction, which risks conflating pattern matching with coherent respondent-level prediction. We propose cross-survey transfer, a more rigorous evaluation framework in which an LLM is given a respondent's answers to one set of questions and must predict their answers to entirely different questions from the same survey. Using data from the Taiwan Election and Democratization Study (TEDS) 2024, three open-weight LLMs (27B-120B parameters), and supervised machine learning baselines, we find that: (1) zero-shot LLMs achieve 52% accuracy on genuinely unseen items, closing to within 6 percentage points (pp) of a supervised random forest trained on same-population data; (2) a stable construct predictability hierarchy emerges, from 67% for partisan attitudes to 23% for sovereignty; and (3) variance collapse and safety alignment effects-two commonly cited LLM limitations-turn out to be more nuanced than previously reported, with variance collapse affecting supervised models as well and alignment effects varying dramatically across model families. These findings clarify both the promise and boundaries of silicon sampling.
Abstract:Predicate invention (PI), the creation of new predicates to extend the hypothesis space, remains a critical bottleneck in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). Existing methods rely on domain expertise and produce semantically opaque predicates, hindering adaptation to unfamiliar domains and cross-task reuse. We present ADVENT, an LLM-driven PI mechanism for ILP. ADVENT pairs LLM abductive generation with Prolog deductive verification, forming an iterative loop in which concrete execution results guide the LLM to refine candidate predicates. The mechanism leverages Large Language Models to identify implicit patterns in structured relational data and invent auxiliary predicates with meaningful names and definitions. Invented predicates and learned rules accumulate in a knowledge pool for cross-task reuse. Experiments on nine poker-hand concepts across seven LLMs show that LLM-driven PI achieves 58% success rate where ILP alone fails entirely, formal verification raises this to 80%, and the knowledge pool yields gains up to +31 percentage points, while producing human-interpretable rules. These results suggest that ADVENT offers a promising direction for automating predicate invention and enabling cross-task knowledge reuse in ILP.
Abstract:Estimating individualized treatment effects from observational data presents a persistent challenge due to unmeasured confounding and structural bias. Causal Machine Learning (causal ML) methods, such as causal trees and doubly robust estimators, provide tools for estimating conditional average treatment effects. These methods have limited effectiveness in complex real-world environments due to the presence of latent confounders or those described in unstructured formats. Moreover, reliance on domain experts for confounder identification and rule interpretation introduces high annotation cost and scalability concerns. In this work, we proposed Large Language Model-based agents for automated confounder discovery and subgroup analysis that integrate agents into the causal ML pipeline to simulate domain expertise. Our framework systematically performs subgroup identification and confounding structure discovery by leveraging the reasoning capabilities of LLM-based agents, which reduces human dependency while preserving interpretability. Experiments on real-world medical datasets show that our proposed approach enhances treatment effect estimation robustness by narrowing confidence intervals and uncovering unrecognized confounding biases. Our findings suggest that LLM-based agents offer a promising path toward scalable, trustworthy, and semantically aware causal inference.
Abstract:Recent advancements in Large Language Models offer promising capabilities to simulate complex human social interactions. We investigate whether LLM-based multi-agent simulations can reproduce core human social dynamics observed in online forums. We evaluate conformity dynamics, group polarization, and fragmentation across different model scales and reasoning capabilities using a structured simulation framework. Our findings indicate that smaller models exhibit higher conformity rates, whereas models optimized for reasoning are more resistant to social influence.