MASS: Deep Research for Social Sciences with Memory-Augmented Social Simulation

LLMs are increasingly deployed to simulate social interactions, yet many of the existing simulators remain ad hoc and monolithic. This lack of architectural standardization prevents reproducible research and complicates downstream evaluation. We advance a rigorous science of LLM-based multi-agent simulation by modularizing core components into Environments, Agents, Simulation engines, and Evaluation metrics (EASE). We demonstrate the utility of EASE configuration by wrapping it in an experimental study schema for orchestrating workflows centered around answering explicit research questions in generated scenarios. We contribute SiliSocS, an open-source, research-ready Silicon Society Sandbox implementing a study-structured EASE configuration to enable highly configurable and reproducible LLM-based social simulations. Using SiliSocS and EASE, we present three case studies, showcasing the system's comprehensive assessment of existing questions, ability to dive deeper into complex questions, and elaboration of existing studies, respectively. Together, these case studies highlight the limitations of current modeling approaches and isolate the impacts of design choices on key results.

AI scientist systems are beginning to automate parts of scientific research, but social science poses a distinct challenge: its objects of inquiry are not merely datasets or laboratory protocols, but integrated social processes involving situated participants, interaction contexts, interventions, and outcomes. Yet a critical link is missing: existing systems either assist isolated research tasks or simulate agents as experimental subjects, leaving the research workflow and simulated society decoupled. Here we introduce AgentSociety 2, an Integrated Research Environment for executable social science. It couples two roles of LLM agents in the same runtime: AI social scientists that coordinate literature grounding, hypothesis generation, experiment design, simulation execution, result interpretation, and manuscript drafting; and silicon participants that generate behavioral responses within configurable social environments. This dual-role design turns hypotheses into auditable agent behaviors, environment rules, interventions, and measurements, thereby supporting an end-to-end workflow. Across seven illustrative studies spanning micro-level social-science laboratory experiments, meso-level dynamics in social media, and macro-level urban scenarios, we demonstrate its capacity to support diverse disciplinary questions, reproduce major qualitative patterns from prior studies, identify informative deviations, and enable large-scale simulations through optimized agent-environment interactions. By preserving human researchers' high-level agency while delegating procedural orchestration to agentic systems, it provides a human-in-the-loop and controllable infrastructure for next-generation computational social science, with broader applications in scalable computational social experimentation and AI-enabled social governance platforms.

This position paper argues that LLM-based social simulations require clear boundaries to make meaningful contributions to social science. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for simulating human behavior, their tendency to produce homogeneous outputs, acting as an "average persona", fundamentally limits their ability to capture the behavioral diversity essential for complex social dynamics. We examine why heterogeneity matters for social simulations and how current LLMs fall short, analyzing the relationship between mean alignment and variance in LLM-generated behaviors. Through a systematic review of representative studies, we find that validation practices often fail to match the heterogeneity requirements of research questions: while most papers include ground truth comparisons, fewer than half explicitly assess behavioral variance, and most that do report lower variance than human populations. We propose that researchers should: (1) match validation depth to the heterogeneity demands of their research questions, (2) explicitly report variance alongside mean alignment, and (3) constrain claims to collective-level qualitative patterns when variance is insufficient. Rather than dismissing LLM-based simulation, we advocate for a boundary-aware approach that ensures these methods contribute genuine insights to social science.