Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.01354

Wrong Together: Shared Bias in User Simulation

Saber Zerhoudi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

User simulators generate responses in place of human participants, allowing researchers to estimate the result of a study. To use these estimates before collecting human responses, researchers need a way to assess their reliability. We test whether disagreement among simulators can identify unreliable estimates of a group's response proportions and of differences between groups. We evaluate this signal using 6 language-model simulators and existing GlobalOpinionQA responses for 60 questions in 12 countries. Disagreement predicts invalidity more accurately for differences between two groups than for a single group's response proportions (AUC 0.87 versus 0.71). Errors shared by the simulators remain invisible to this signal. When such an error affects both groups equally, it cancels in the comparison, helping explain the stronger result for group differences. We test this explanation by estimating the shared bias using one set of groups and subtracting it from predictions for a separate set. This correction reduces prediction error without changing disagreement among the simulators. In a retrospective analysis, we simulate referring the 20% of group comparisons with the greatest disagreement for human assessment. Among the remaining comparisons with a conclusive validity judgment, 54.8% are judged invalid, compared with 63.7% before referral.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Saber Zerhoudi. 2026-10-31. Wrong Together: Shared Bias in User Simulation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.01354

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Semantic Self-Consistency: Enhancing Language Model Reasoning via Semantic Weighting

While large language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved their performance on a broad number of tasks, they still often fall short on reasoning tasks. As LLMs become more integrated in diverse real-world tasks, advancing their reasoning capabilities is crucial to their effectiveness in nuanced, complex problems. Wang et al.'s self-consistency framework reveals that sampling multiple rationales before taking a majority vote reliably improves model performance across various closed-answer reasoning tasks. Standard methods based on this framework aggregate the final decisions of these rationales but fail to utilize the semantic information detailed in the step-by-step reasoning paths. Our work introduces semantic self-consistency, enhancing this approach by incorporating and analyzing both the reasoning paths of these rationales in addition to their final decisions before taking a majority vote. These methods not only improve the reliability of reasoning paths but also cause more robust performance on complex reasoning tasks.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Beyond Isolated Dots: Benchmarking Structured Table Construction as Deep Knowledge Extraction

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to extract and synthesize structured information from complex real-world documents, yet they typically produce unstructured, hard-to-verify paragraph-style outputs. We introduce AOE (Arranged and Organized Extraction), a bilingual benchmark that evaluates LLMs' ability to distill long-form, multi-document inputs (64k to 1.8M tokens) into structured tables. AOE comprises 12 tasks across four domains (academic, financial, legal, and medical), each grounded in genuine analytical needs, with schema guidance provided to isolate extraction quality from formatting variance. We evaluate 12 frontier LLMs (both open-weight and proprietary) under four generation settings of increasing autonomy: direct full-document input, RAG-based retrieval, offline document-browsing agent, and online web-search agent. Even the best-performing model achieves only 42.7% Cell F1, and retrieval-augmented approaches often degrade rather than improve performance, revealing that structured extraction from long contexts remains a fundamental challenge - an "Area of Effect" (AOE) that impacts all tested systems.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

PersonaFuse: A Situation-Aware Post-Training Framework for Adaptive LLM Behavior in Enterprise Tasks

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in enterprise settings to support task execution and workflow automation. Despite the strong performance of general-purpose models on standard benchmarks, organizations often need to adapt them to domain-specific tasks and operational constraints in practice. However, existing post-training approaches introduce capability trade-offs and lack mechanisms for situational adaptation. In this work, we propose PersonaFuse, a post-training framework that enables situation-aware behavioral adaptation in LLMs. Grounded in Trait Activation Theory and operationalized through the Five-Factor Model, PersonaFuse dynamically adjusts model behavior based on task context using a mixture-of-experts architecture with trait-level experts and a context-aware routing mechanism. We evaluate PersonaFuse at three levels. At the capability level, it achieves balanced improvements across general reasoning, interaction quality, and safety without introducing trade-offs. At the workflow level, it improves task completion in enterprise scenarios involving tool use and structured execution across both B2B and B2C tasks. At the deployment level, we analyze model selection under cost and safety constraints using a capability-cost frontier framework, showing that models adapted with PersonaFuse achieve more favorable trade-offs and are consistently selected as optimal across deployment scenarios. PersonaFuse provides a practical framework for developing LLMs that are not only capable, but also adaptable and deployable in real-world enterprise environments.

cs.CL↗