market research analysts

Abstract: Assessing whether qualitative responses collected from semi-structured questions are ready for a particular analysis goal is a persistent challenge. Manual qualitative analysis is interpretive and labor-intensive, while existing automated methods often lack a dataset-level perspective for deciding whether a response set supports a researcher-selected analytical lens. We introduce QuAD, a framework for quantitative pre-analysis assessment of qualitative response datasets. QuAD compares a reconstructed intrinsic cluster distribution reconstructed from responses with an extrinsic, researcher-defined analytical lens derived from metadata. QuAD is structured into a four-quadrant assessment whose metrics are read jointly, from lens-level relations to within-cluster variation, to provide fitness-for-purpose signals for revealing general patterns and unique insights. Because this assessment relies on lens-conditioned inter-response dissimilarity, we propose a content-aware multi-agent system with two-stage instruction generation and adaptive anchors to improve scoring consistency. We validate QuAD through controlled experiments on synthetic data, including robustness and baseline comparisons, and a real-world social survey case study. The case study shows how QuAD quantitatively assesses whether a selected analysis axis is promising and also surfaces representative or unusual responses for human interpretation.

Abstract: We study the problem of recovering the ranking of a fixed set of items according to their unknown numerical utilities. At each interaction with the environment, a learner presents the item set to a human and receives comparative feedback of two types. Under full-ranking feedback, each interaction reveals a noisy ranking of all items, whereas under winner-only feedback, it reveals only the item ranked first. In both settings, we model human feedback using a random utility model with log-concave noise and study the number of observations needed to recover an $ε$-accurate ranking with high probability. This novel criterion tolerates ordering errors only between items whose utilities differ by less than $ε$. For both feedback types, we establish worst-case sample-complexity lower bounds and develop algorithms that match these bounds up to logarithmic factors. Neither algorithm requires knowledge of the noise distribution, while only requiring an upper bound on its variance. Our results show that the ranking problem under winner-only feedback is intrinsically harder by exposing the sample complexity dependence on the minimum winning probability across the item set.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate synthetic survey respondents and digital twins of real people, but whether their output preserves real human statistical structure, rather than surface plausibility, remains unresolved, and most existing evidence comes from proprietary models rather than open-weight ones. We evaluate three open-weight LLM families on a cross-instrument calibration task: conditioning personas on real respondents' verbatim answers to one psychometric instrument and measuring them on a second, construct-distance-controlled instrument, checked against a 2,058-person human panel. Across a 139-pair grid, the simulated cross-instrument correlation tracks the real human correlation at r = 0.70 - 0.73 in every model, driven mainly by correct sign rather than precise magnitude and concentrated in pairs of moderate construct distance. A correlation of this magnitude, obtained from untuned open-weight models conditioned only on individual-level survey data, is a substantively encouraging result for LLM-based behavioral simulation and digital-twin applications: specific model families and releases already reproduce a meaningful share of real human cross-instrument structure without any fine-tuning. This capability does not, however, improve monotonically across model releases: on a matched panel, the newest of three tested Llama releases performs worst on two of three headline metrics, so realizing its promise in practice requires release-specific, distance-aware verification rather than a one-time benchmark.

Abstract: A synthetic survey can reproduce the average answer while misrepresenting how people differ, how their answers relate to one another, or how they respond to changes in conditions. We introduce the Artificial Societies Benchmark to help researchers assess whether synthetic populations support their intended analyses. The framework combines eleven tests across internal, construct, and external validity, drawing on twenty human sources and comparing nine language models. It connects each research use to the evidence it requires and tests how results change with the information we supply about respondents. Importantly, strong performance in one domain does not establish fidelity in the others. Models often answer too consistently, compress response scales, and alter relationships between traits whilst richer profiles improve prediction for some models and worsen it for others. The resulting scorecard helps researchers identify which aspects of a synthetic population can support their analysis and where researchers need further human evidence.

Abstract: The partial label ranking problem is a supervised learning scenario that aims to fit a preference model that predicts a bucket order defined over a set of labels for a given input instance. This problem generalizes the well-known label ranking problem, which, in practice, is limited to outputting total orders of labels. Existing partial label ranking methods have primarily extended label ranking approaches to handle ties in predictions. This paper proposes using multi-output regression to address the partial label ranking problem, introducing an encoder that, during the learning phase, transforms the (possibly incomplete) rankings with ties of labels to multivariate regression targets, an underexplored perspective in both label ranking and partial label ranking. Moreover, during the inference phase, we introduce several post-hoc layers that convert the multi-output regression results into the output bucket order to effectively implement this approach. This framework provides learning strategies that are competitive with the current state-of-the-art partial label ranking methods, as demonstrated through experimental evaluations.