Tobias Holtdirk

Tobias Holtdirk, Dennis Assenmacher, Arnim Bleier et al.

Survey researchers face two key challenges: the rising costs of probability samples and missing data (e.g., non-response or attrition), which can undermine inference and increase the use of convenience samples. Recent work explores using large language models (LLMs) to simulate respondents via persona-based prompts, often without labeled data. We study a more practical setting where partial survey responses exist: we fine-tune LLMs on available data to impute self-reported vote choice under both random and systematic nonresponse, using the German Longitudinal Election Study. We compare zero-shot prompting and supervised fine-tuning against tabular classifiers (e.g., CatBoost) and test how different convenience samples (e.g., students) used for fine-tuning affect generalization. Our results show that when data are missing completely at random, fine-tuned LLMs match tabular classifiers but outperform zero-shot approaches. When only biased convenience samples are available, fine-tuning small (3B to 8B) open-source LLMs can recover both individual-level predictions and population-level distributions more accurately than zero-shot and often better than tabular methods. This suggests fine-tuned LLMs offer a promising strategy for researchers working with non-probability samples or systematic missingness, and may enable new survey designs requiring only easily accessible subpopulations.

Tobias Holtdirk, Pietro Marcolongo, Anna Steinberg Schulten et al.

Reproducibility in the social and behavioral sciences is typically evaluated by independent researchers who reanalyze the original data to assess whether the published findings can be recovered. However, such approaches are resource-intensive and difficult to scale. Here, we show that large language models (LLMs) can automate reproducibility assessments. Using N=76 published studies with predefined claims from the behavioral and social sciences, we compare LLM-generated analysis with the original findings and human reanalysis. For 7 studies, the LLM could not produce a viable effect size estimate. For the remaining studies, our LLM pipeline recovered the original effect sizes in 41% of studies using a +/-0.05 tolerance in Cohen's d. Further, our LLM pipeline reached the same qualitative conclusion as the original study in 96% of cases, where conclusions indicate whether the reanalysis supports the original claim. For comparison, human reanalysts recovered the original effect sizes in 34% of studies and reached the same qualitative conclusion in 74% of cases. Together, these results show that LLMs can serve as a scalable tool for automated reproducibility assessment and provide a foundation for systematic auditing of empirical results in the social and behavioral sciences.