In-Context Learning for the Imputation of Public Opinion Data with Large Language Models

Survey research faces mounting structural challenges: declining response rates, sample bias, block-wise missingness among at-risk respondents, and AI-assisted fraudulent completions in online panels. Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as a remedy, yet rigorous evaluations across the full survey workflow remain scarce, particularly in disaster contexts where data quality matters most. We present and evaluate a five-stage framework for LLM integration covering questionnaire design, sample selection, pilot testing, missing-data imputation, and post-collection analysis, using the 2024 Hurricane Milton preparedness survey of Florida residents (n=946) as a shared empirical testbed. We introduce a Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-constrained co-occurrence knowledge graph and develop seven LLM configurations spanning zero-shot inference, retrieval-augmented baselines, and novel theory-informed variants. Our proposed Anchored Marginal Theory-Informed LLM (A-TLM) outperforms all three classical imputation baselines (IPW/MI, MICE+PMM, missForest) on RMSE under disaster-relevant block-wise MNAR conditions (S4 RMSE 1.439 vs. 1.496 for the next-best), while achieving near-zero signed bias (-0.121) where the random-forest imputer produces the largest absolute bias (-0.631). Organizing retrieval around PMT causal structure and integrating all evidence in a single model call outperforms unstructured retrieval and staged sequential inference (MAE 0.993 vs. 1.097 for standard RAG). We document that near-zero aggregate bias can mask opposing subgroup errors and propose subgroup-stratified bias auditing as a reporting standard. A retrieval-constrained knowledge-graph chatbot demonstrates that hallucination is architecturally manageable through grounded refusal.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where the available context is incomplete or degraded. We argue that an LLM generating answers under incomplete context can be viewed as an implicit imputer, and evaluated against a criterion from the multiple imputation (MI) literature: uncertainty should scale with the amount of missing information. We assess this criterion on SQuAD, using a controlled framework in which context availability is varied across five levels. We evaluate two answer-level uncertainty measures that can be estimated from repeated sampling: sampling-based confidence (empirical mode frequency) and response entropy. Confidence fails to reflect increasing missingness: it remains high even as accuracy collapses. Entropy, by contrast, increases with context removal, consistent with the MI analogy, and explains substantially more variance in accuracy than confidence across all evidence levels (quadratic $R^2$ gap up to 0.057). We further introduce a black-box diagnostic $ρ_R(α)$ that estimates the proportion of baseline uncertainty resolved by context level $α$, requiring only repeated sampling with and without context. These results suggest that entropy is a more responsive black-box uncertainty measure than confidence under incomplete context.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate social survey responses, yet their outputs exhibit systematic biases: marginal distributions are skewed, response variance is poorly calibrated, and predictor-outcome relationships are attenuated. We ask a simple question: given a small pilot sample of human responses, can an LLM recover the statistical characteristics of a broader population? We decompose recovery along three axes: structural fidelity, marginal fidelity, and individual fidelity. Using a COVID-19 misinformation survey as a case study, we benchmark three families of approaches: prompting, rectification, and fine-tuning. The findings suggest that fine-tuning on small pilot samples offers a balanced approach for achieving multiple forms of fidelity, but the levels of such fidelity can vary across subsamples, potentially threatening pluralistic alignment.