Silicon Sampling via Cross-Survey Transfer

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.

ADVENT: LLM-Driven Automatic Predicate Invention for ILP

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.

ForEx: A Formal Verification Framework for Explainable Reasoning in Logical Fallacy Detection and Annotation

Current evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) on logical fallacy detection focus on predicted labels, but do not establish whether those labels are supported by the reasoning the models provide. We propose ForEx (Formal Verification for Explainable Reasoning), a framework that translates LLM-generated explanations into Lean4 and verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument. To distinguish prediction outcomes from the formal status of the supporting reasoning, we introduce the LLM Argument Verification Matrix, which separates label consistency from formal verification status. Experiments on LOGIC-Climate show that over 90% of LLM outputs can be translated into formal reasoning chains that pass verification, while agreement with human annotations remains around 20%. These results expose a systematic gap between formal derivability and label agreement, a distinction invisible to prediction-based metrics. ForEx moves LLM evaluation beyond label correctness toward machine-checkable analysis of formalized reasoning chains.

Latent Confidence Alignment for LLM Self-Assessment

Confidence calibration in large language models (LLMs) is commonly evaluated by comparing predicted confidence with observed accuracy. However, such approaches do not model item difficulty, making it difficult to interpret discrepancies and to determine whether model confidence reflects genuine self-assessment or is merely a byproduct of the response generation process. To address this, we adopt a Rasch model-based latent ability framework and a metacognitive perspective, and propose Latent Confidence Alignment Error (LCAE) to measure the consistency between model self-assessment and the latent error probability implied by model ability and item difficulty. We further incorporate item difficulty as an external signal with a reasoning mechanism. Experiments on a medical-domain dataset with 20 models show that the proposed approach improves self-assessment quality without affecting model ability, and reveals an association between reliability and inference cost.

LLM-based Agents for Automated Confounder Discovery and Subgroup Analysis in Causal Inference

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.

Towards Interpretable Renal Health Decline Forecasting via Multi-LMM Collaborative Reasoning Framework

Accurate and interpretable prediction of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is essential for managing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and supporting clinical decisions. Recent advances in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have shown strong potential in clinical prediction tasks due to their ability to process visual and textual information. However, challenges related to deployment cost, data privacy, and model reliability hinder their adoption. In this study, we propose a collaborative framework that enhances the performance of open-source LMMs for eGFR forecasting while generating clinically meaningful explanations. The framework incorporates visual knowledge transfer, abductive reasoning, and a short-term memory mechanism to enhance prediction accuracy and interpretability. Experimental results show that the proposed framework achieves predictive performance and interpretability comparable to proprietary models. It also provides plausible clinical reasoning processes behind each prediction. Our method sheds new light on building AI systems for healthcare that combine predictive accuracy with clinically grounded interpretability.

Towards Simulating Social Influence Dynamics with LLM-based Multi-agents

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.