Automated Social Science: Language Models as Scientist and Subjects
AI-generated Key Points
- Introduction of innovative approach to utilizing LLMs for generating and testing social scientific hypotheses in silico
- Incorporation of LLMs providing framework for stating hypotheses, constructing agents, designing experiments, and analyzing data
- Demonstration of system's effectiveness through simulations of social scenarios like negotiations, bail hearings, job interviews, and auctions
- Motivation behind automating social science with LLMs lies in their ability to capture latent information about human behavior from text data
- Potential of LLMs in predicting human behavior demonstrated in recent studies
- Leveraging sophisticated models developed by LLMs through text prediction training to extract insights about human behavior without human intervention
- Development of a system mirroring traditional experimental process followed by social scientists for automated social science experimentation
- System includes selecting research topic, identifying variables and hypotheses, designing experiments, analyzing data, recruiting participants, running experiments, and interpreting results.
Authors: Benjamin S. Manning, Kehang Zhu, John J. Horton
Abstract: We present an approach for automatically generating and testing, in silico, social scientific hypotheses. This automation is made possible by recent advances in large language models (LLM), but the key feature of the approach is the use of structural causal models. Structural causal models provide a language to state hypotheses, a blueprint for constructing LLM-based agents, an experimental design, and a plan for data analysis. The fitted structural causal model becomes an object available for prediction or the planning of follow-on experiments. We demonstrate the approach with several scenarios: a negotiation, a bail hearing, a job interview, and an auction. In each case, causal relationships are both proposed and tested by the system, finding evidence for some and not others. We provide evidence that the insights from these simulations of social interactions are not available to the LLM purely through direct elicitation. When given its proposed structural causal model for each scenario, the LLM is good at predicting the signs of estimated effects, but it cannot reliably predict the magnitudes of those estimates. In the auction experiment, the in silico simulation results closely match the predictions of auction theory, but elicited predictions of the clearing prices from the LLM are inaccurate. However, the LLM's predictions are dramatically improved if the model can condition on the fitted structural causal model. In short, the LLM knows more than it can (immediately) tell.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.