Papers for

social scientists

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Synthetic agents model group preferences without mimicking humans

Synthetic Cultural Agents from Aggregate Anchors

Abstract: Population prompts are widely used to generate synthetic survey responses, but they combine information supplied at inference with associations already encoded during pretraining. We introduce an alternative construction that maps declared aggregate preference anchors into group-indexed choice policies. For each population, the signs of six Global Preferences Survey (GPS) coordinates deterministically label a shared bank of paired synthetic responses, and Direct Preference Optimization fits a parameter-efficient adapter to those comparisons. We evaluate the adapters on candidate World Values Survey (WVS) items using prompts that omit country names and distinguish four questions: recovery of the imposed labels, transfer of the anchor signal to new text, coherence between the GPS anchors and human WVS responses, and agreement between adapter and human scores. The adapters recover the imposed pairwise labels. On a purposively selected sixteen-country development panel, adapter trust scores completely separate the two GPS-sign groups and have a rank correlation of (0.74) with continuous GPS trust scores. Human-GPS and adapter-human associations remain unresolved on the same panel, and results for the other preference dimensions are heterogeneous. These findings show that an anchored policy can retain a declared aggregate signal without thereby reproducing human response patterns. The contribution is therefore both an inspectable construction and an evaluation framework that separates anchor transfer from human criterion agreement.

Mon 5 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Generating synthetic survey answers usually mixes preset knowledge with new info, which can blur how groups truly differ. The paper introduces a way to create synthetic survey responses that stick to given group-level preferences explicitly, by mapping them to choices the model makes. The authors test how well these synthetic agents keep the original group signals without necessarily copying how real people answer. Their results show their method can represent declared group preferences clearly but doesn’t guarantee matching actual human responses exactly.
Open → 2610.06562v1

Social science research maps three key areas of large language models

Mapping the Emerging Social Science of Large Language Models

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape communication, learning, work, creativity, and decision-making, yet social-science research on these developments remains fragmented. We map this emerging field using a curated corpus of 198 papers reviewed in full and a field-scale corpus of 47,719 published papers from five bibliographic databases. Combining sentence embeddings, K-means clustering, within-cluster Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), author and LLM classifications, and structural topic modeling, we identify three domains: LLM as Social Minds, examining socially interpretable model behavior; LLM Societies, examining collective dynamics among interacting model-based agents; and LLM-Human Interactions, examining how people perceive, use, and are affected by LLMs. These domains contain 13 subcategories spanning reasoning, personality and bias, behavioral games, collective intelligence, simulation, trust, work, creativity, and education. In the curated corpus, the three-domain solution is highly stable under resampling (adjusted Rand index = 0.952), and K-means assignments agree with author full-text classifications for 77.78% of papers. At field scale, 13 of 15 topics map onto the taxonomy, while K-means and structural-topic-model domains agree for 73.83% of overlapping papers. LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 78.02% of domain-mapped topic mass, but venue analysis reveals a contrasting pattern: Social Minds and LLM Societies together account for 66.37% of highly cited papers in leading conference venues, whereas LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 76.81% in the corresponding journal subset. The resulting taxonomy provides a reproducible framework for understanding how model behavior, agent interaction, and institutional context jointly shape the social consequences of LLMs.

Mon 7 SeptComputers and SocietyArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) are changing how people communicate and work, but research about their social impacts is scattered. The authors looked at nearly 200 key papers and almost 48,000 papers overall to organize this research into three main areas: how LLMs behave like social minds, how multiple LLMs interact like societies, and how humans interact with LLMs. They identified detailed topics like reasoning, creativity, trust, and bias across these areas. This mapping helps others understand how LLMs affect social and institutional contexts.
Open → 2609.07598v1