Linzhuo Li

Xiangxu Zhang, Jiamin Wang, Qinlin Zhao et al.

As LLMs become increasingly integrated into human society, evaluating their orientations on human values from social science has drawn growing attention. Nevertheless, it is still unclear why human values matter for LLMs, especially in LLM-based multi-agent systems, where group-level failures may accumulate from individually misaligned actions. We ask whether misalignment with human values alters the collective behavior of LLM agents and what changes it induces? In this work, we introduce CIVA, a controlled multi-agent environment grounded in social science theories, where LLM agents form a community and autonomously communicate, explore, and compete for resources, enabling systematic manipulation of value prevalence and behavioral analysis. Through comprehensive simulation experiments, we reveal three key findings. (1) We identify several structurally critical values that substantially shape the community's collective dynamics, including those diverging from LLMs' original orientations. Triggered by the misspecification of these values, we (2) detect system failure modes, e.g., catastrophic collapse, at the macro level, and (3) observe emergent behaviors like deception and power-seeking at the micro level. These results offer quantitative evidence that human values are essential for collective outcomes in LLMs and motivate future multi-agent value alignment.

Dai Li, Linzhuo Li, Huilian Sophie Qiu

Large language models (LLMs) in the form of chatbots like ChatGPT and Llama are increasingly proposed as "silicon samples" for simulating human opinions. This study examines this notion, arguing that LLMs may misrepresent population-level opinions. We identify two fundamental challenges: a failure in structural consistency, where response accuracy doesn't hold across demographic aggregation levels, and homogenization, an underrepresentation of minority opinions. To investigate these, we prompted ChatGPT (GPT-4) and Meta's Llama 3.1 series (8B, 70B, 405B) with questions on abortion and unauthorized immigration from the American National Election Studies (ANES) 2020. Our findings reveal significant structural inconsistencies and severe homogenization in LLM responses compared to human data. We propose an "accuracy-optimization hypothesis," suggesting homogenization stems from prioritizing modal responses. These issues challenge the validity of using LLMs, especially chatbots AI, as direct substitutes for human survey data, potentially reinforcing stereotypes and misinforming policy.

Bolun Zhang, Linzhuo Li, Yunqi Chen et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into computational social science research, yet their blackboxed training and designed stochastic elements in inference pose unique challenges for scientific inquiry. This article argues that applying LLMs to social scientific tasks requires explicit assessment of uncertainty-an expectation long established in both quantitative methodology in the social sciences and machine learning. We introduce a unified framework for evaluating LLM uncertainty along two dimensions: the task type (T), which distinguishes between classification, short-form, and long-form generation, and the validation type (V), which captures the availability of reference data or evaluative criteria. Drawing from both computer science and social science literature, we map existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods to this T-V typology and offer practical recommendations for researchers. Our framework provides both a methodological safeguard and a practical guide for integrating LLMs into rigorous social science research.