cs.AIAug 9, 2026

Automated Generation of Complexity-Validated Decision Scenarios Using Large Language Models

Authors: Abdalla Doleh, Toni Somers, Ratna Babu Chinnam

Organizations: Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA · Mike Ilitch School of Business, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

Abstract

Cognitive decision-making research depends on diverse scenarios with carefully controlled complexity, yet manual production is slow, inconsistent, and biased. We developed an automated pipeline that uses LLms to generate structured decision scenarios and validates their complexity through a composite framework rooted in established task-complexity theory. We evaluated 4,238 scenarios across multiple domains and complexity tiers. Measurement validation met rigorous psychometric standards. Agreement among five independent model families was nearly perfect, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.997 and a kappa of 0.971. Known-groups validity demonstrated large separation between tiers, with an eta-squared of 0.587 and all pairwise comparisons significant at p less than .001. Factor analysis revealed a dominant complexity construct, with loadings between 0.87 and 0.96 across three frameworks, while interactivity formed a weaker secondary dimension at 0.34. Discriminant validity was limited by a strong relationship between complexity and text length that persisted after controlling for tier, yielding a partial correlation of 0.86. This constrains construct purity but does not undermine the instrument's tier-grading function. Model analyses showed a negative association between throughput and schema pass rate (r = -0.967, p = .007, n = 5), suggesting a speed-quality trade-off, though largely driven by one high-throughput model. Llama 4 Maverick generated scenarios fastest at 134 per minute versus 25 for DeepSeek Chat V3.2, but underproduced complex-tier scenarios, whereas DeepSeek Chat V3.2 balanced domain coverage with high schema compliance. The system demonstrated strong psychometric properties, enabling reliable classification into Simple, Moderate, and Complex tiers and providing the measurement infrastructure needed for downstream cognitive assessment of AI systems

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 19, 2026cs.AI

Generative-Evaluative Agreement: A Necessary Validity Criterion for LLM-Enabled Adaptive Assessment

When the same LLM generates assessment items, simulates student responses, and scores them, the validation loop is self-referential. We introduce Generative-Evaluative Agreement (GEA), a validity criterion measuring whether an LLM's scoring function recovers the skill levels its generative function was instructed to produce. In the first direct measurement of GEA on a two-stage adaptive assessment, the model recovers roughly half the intended variance r = 0.698 with systematic positive bias. GEA is strong r > 0.7 for syntactically verifiable skills but near zero for design-level skills, and low-skill overestimation inflates scores near the routing threshold. We argue that granular, skill-decomposed rubrics are the principal proposed mechanism for strengthening GEA and outline complementary mitigations.
Grandee Lee, Yue Wang, Che Yee Lye +1
Automated AssessmentRubricsOverconfidence
AskPDF
Apr 24, 2026cs.HC

An LLM-Native Psychometric Instrument Reveals a Self-Report--Behavior Gap Across 25 Models

Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave. Is this gap an artifact of forcing human trait categories onto LLMs, or something deeper about LLM self-report? To find out, we built the first psychometric instrument whose dimensions are derived from LLM behavior rather than human psychology. Administering 300 items (240 Likert + 60 scenario) to 25 LLMs across 17 model families, 30 times each, exploratory factor analysis revealed five reliable, replicable factors: Responsiveness, Deference, Boldness, Guardedness, and Verbosity (all Tucker φ≥.957φ\geq .957, all α≥.930α\geq .930). We collected 2,500 open-ended samples and had them rated by 151 humans and a three-judge LLM ensemble. Humans and judges agreed (rˉ=.51\bar{r} = .51), but self-report predicted neither the ratings nor objective text measures computed from them: the gap persists even for constructs native to LLMs, where a human-mismatch explanation no longer applies. The exception is Verbosity, whose self-report reaches 74% of the criterion-reliability ceiling against human ratings, but does not track raw output length. On Responsiveness, self-report tracked LLM judges (r=.53r = .53) but not humans (r=.04r = .04), even though humans and judges otherwise agreed (r=.59r = .59). This pattern formally rejects any single latent construct driving all three measurements (p=.007p = .007). Self-report items and LLM judges share a source of variance that human observers do not, and controlling for measurable surface features (length, formatting, enthusiasm markers) does not remove it. This confound is invisible to the within-ensemble reliability checks used to validate LLM judges, and it poses a concrete risk for the LLM-as-judge pipelines now central to model evaluation. We release the instrument as a diagnostic probe for alignment-shaped self-description.
Juan Manuel Contreras
PsychometricsModel Self-AssessmentMismatch
AskPDF
Jun 10, 2026cs.CL

LLMs Can Better Capture Human Judgments--With the Right Prompts

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.
Danica Dillion, Chen Cecilia Liu, Baihui Wang +5
Artificial Intelligence AlignmentMoral ReasoningSoft PromptsHumanityRaterResponses+1
AskPDF