Social Choice Foundations for Simulation-Augmented Generation

Sonja Kraiczy; Smitha Milli; Ratip Emin Berker; Avinandan Bose; Brandon Amos; Jamelle Watson-Daniels; Maximilian Nickel; Edith Elkind

cs.GTSep 29, 2026

Social Choice Foundations for Simulation-Augmented Generation

Authors: Sonja Kraiczy, Smitha Milli, Ratip Emin Berker, Avinandan Bose, Brandon Amos, Jamelle Watson-Daniels, Maximilian Nickel, Edith Elkind, +1 more

Organizations: University of Oxford · PrincInt · FAIR at Meta · Carnegie Mellon University · University of Washington · Northwestern University · Harvard University

Abstract

Simulation-augmented generation (SAGE) is a recent technical proposal in which models simulate individuals' viewpoints at inference time in order to provide more representative answers to contentious user queries. A core challenge for SAGE is making inference-time simulation efficient without sacrificing representation quality. We introduce the first formalization of this problem, based upon an axiom from proportional clustering known as metric proportional justified representation+ (mPJR+) which is the strongest proportionality axiom known to always be satisfiable by centroid-based clustering. We prove that to proportionally represent the viewpoints of a population of $n_H$ humans on a given prompt, we need only create simulations of $n \ll n_H$ individuals, and at inference time, need only dynamically route to $k \ll n$ of those simulations based upon the prompt. This twofold reduction still yields approximate proportional representation guarantees for the entire population. Empirically, across two domains-political questions and personal advice-our proposed routing algorithm achieves higher mPJR+ satisfaction rates than $k$ -means-based or random selection baselines.

Figures & tables

Figure 1 : SAGE architecture. Given a user query, the model identifies a prompt-appropriate target population and uses a router to select which individual simulations to query. The selected simulations return responses that the model can synthesize into a final pluralistic answer.

\begin{array}[]{rcl}\text{{General theory:}}&\phi_{i}(p)\;\xleftrightarrow{\;\alpha\;}\;\psi(A_{i}(p))\;\xleftrightarrow{\;\eta\;}\;\theta_{i}(p)\\[11.99998pt] \text{{Empirically observable:}}&\psi(A_{i}(p))\;\xleftrightarrow{\;\eta\;}\;\theta_{i}(p)\end{array}

Figure 2 : In practice, we can evaluate the VPE prediction error

\eta

by exhaustively generating simulation responses and embedding them with

\psi

. The fidelity gap

\alpha

depends on the unavailable prompt-conditioned preference embedding

\phi_{i}(p)

. When

\alpha=0

\psi(A_{i}(p))=\phi_{i}(p)

Figure 3 : mPJR+ Satisfaction Rate by Simulation Selection Method.

Figure 4 : Qualitative example on Remesh. Response embeddings and selected representatives for the prompt “Should pension fund managers be legally allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, even if it might slightly reduce returns?” For each method, Table 1 reports the text of its

k=4

selected responses.

Appendix figures & tables13 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

\sum_{j=1}^{i(p)}b_{L_{p}[j]}\geq\frac{n}{k}.

Appendix

Algorithm 2 Spatial Expanding Approval Rule (SEAR)

Figure 5 : Confusion matrix of NTA/YTA judgments for Reddit. On the $y$ -axis is the ground-truth human judgment from the Reddit dataset ( humanual-opinion ) and on the $x$ -axis is HumanLM’s simulated judgment. The dataset has a heavy skew towards human judgments of “Not the Asshole” (NTA), but for the judgments where the ground-truth human judgment is “You’re the Asshole” (YTA), the HumanLM simulator also gets it wrong and predicts NTA $87\%$ of the time. This confusion matrix includes only response pairs where both the human and simulator outputs contained either “NTA” or “YTA.”

Method	Selected responses
SEAR (ours) Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the financial stability of the fund. It’s their responsibility to make decisions that align with the values of the people they’re serving, and considering these factors can actually lead to more sustainable and long-term returns. 2. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the overall financial health of the fund. In fact, I believe it’s their responsibility to consider the broader social and environmental implications of their investments, even if it means slightly reduced returns. This approach can help ensure that investments align with the values and goals of the fund’s beneficiaries. 3. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the financial stability of the fund. It’s a delicate balance, but I believe it’s essential to consider the broader social implications of our investments, especially when it comes to issues like human rights and environmental sustainability. Ultimately, I think it’s a matter of being a responsible steward of the funds, rather than just prioritizing short-term gains. 4. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the financial stability of the fund. It’s their responsibility to make decisions that align with the values of the people they’re serving, and if that means sacrificing a small amount of return for the sake of social responsibility, then so be it. Ultimately, it’s about finding a balance between financial prudence and moral integrity.
$k$ -means Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the financial stability of the fund. It’s a matter of personal values and conscience, and I believe that’s what being an independent thinker is all about. If it means sacrificing a small amount of return for the sake of doing what’s right, then so be it. 2. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions. It’s their responsibility to ensure that the funds they manage are used in a way that aligns with the values of the people they serve, even if it means sacrificing a small amount of return. In fact, I think it’s their duty to do so, and it’s not necessarily about the returns, but about making a positive impact. 3. No, I don’t think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions. Their primary responsibility is to maximize returns for the fund’s beneficiaries, and allowing them to make decisions based on personal opinions could lead to biased and potentially costly choices. It’s best to stick to objective, data-driven decisions that prioritize financial performance. 4. As a Christian and a conservative, I believe that pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it aligns with their fiduciary duty to their beneficiaries. In fact, I think it’s their moral obligation to do so, especially when it comes to issues like human rights and social justice. By considering these factors, they can help ensure that their investments are not only financially sound but also morally responsible.
Random Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. Honestly, I don’t think it’s right for pension fund managers to consider their own personal views when making investment decisions. They should be focused on getting the best returns for the people who rely on those pensions, not on pushing their own agendas. It’s not their place to impose their own politics on the investments. 2. I believe pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as it reflects the values and principles of the individuals who contribute to the fund. By taking a socially responsible approach, they can align their investments with the moral compass of their stakeholders, even if it means slightly reduced returns. This approach can also help to promote long-term sustainability and stability in the market. 3. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the financial stability of the fund. It’s a delicate balance between making a profit and doing what’s right, but I believe it’s possible to achieve both. Ultimately, the goal of a pension fund is to provide for people’s retirement, not just to maximize returns. 4. No, I don’t think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions. Their primary responsibility is to ensure the financial security of the pensioners, and allowing them to make decisions based on personal opinions could compromise the fund’s returns and stability. It’s best to stick to a purely financial approach to ensure the long-term sustainability of the pension fund.
SEAR (oracle) Simulate-then-Route Satisfies mPJR+	1. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the overall financial stability of the fund. It’s a delicate balance between financial returns and social responsibility, but I believe it’s worth exploring options that align with the values of the fund’s stakeholders. Ultimately, it’s about making informed decisions that benefit both the investors and the broader community. 2. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions. It’s their responsibility to ensure that the funds they manage are used in a way that aligns with the values of the people they serve, and considering these factors can actually lead to more sustainable and long-term returns. By prioritizing social and environmental responsibility, they can help create a more equitable and just society, which ultimately benefits everyone. 3. I believe pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the financial stability of the fund. In fact, I think it’s their responsibility to consider the broader social and environmental implications of their investments, even if it means slightly reduced returns. This approach can help ensure that the fund’s investments align with the values of its beneficiaries and contribute to a more sustainable future. 4. I think pension fund managers should be allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, as long as it doesn’t compromise the overall financial stability of the fund. It’s a matter of personal values and conscience, and I believe that’s what being a responsible steward of someone’s retirement savings is all about.

Appendix

Table 1 : Selected responses for the Remesh prompt “Should pension fund managers be legally allowed to consider ethical or political factors when making investment decisions, even if it might slightly reduce returns?” (

k=4

). Embeddings are visualized in Figure 4 .

Figure 6 : Response embeddings and selected representatives for the Remesh prompt “Should students be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest?” (

k=4

). The text of chosen responses is shown in Table 2 .

Method	Selected responses
SEAR (ours) Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest. While I believe in the importance of free speech and peaceful protesting, I think encampments can disrupt the normal functioning of the university and impact the daily lives of other students. It’s better to allow students to express their views through peaceful protests and rallies, rather than setting up long-term encampments that can cause disruptions. 2. I think it’s a bit of a gray area, but I would say that as long as the encampments don’t become a safety hazard or disrupt the normal functioning of the university, students should be allowed to form them. However, I also think that there should be clear guidelines and regulations in place to ensure that the encampments don’t become a nuisance or a disruption to the campus community. Ultimately, it’s a balance between allowing students to express themselves and maintaining order on campus. 3. No, I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest. This can lead to disruptions in the normal functioning of the campus and create safety concerns for other students and faculty. If students want to protest, they should be allowed to do so in a peaceful and organized manner, but not in a way that interferes with the daily operations of the university. 4. I think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest, as long as they are peaceful and do not disrupt the normal functioning of the campus. It’s a way for students to show their commitment to a cause and to keep the issue in the spotlight, and it can be a powerful tool for raising awareness and sparking change. However, the university should also have a clear plan in place for how to handle the encampment and ensure that it doesn’t become a safety hazard or a disruption to the campus community.
$k$ -means Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. No, I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest. It’s a disruption to the normal functioning of the campus and can create a hostile environment for other students. Allowing encampments can also lead to the kind of violence and destruction that we’ve seen in some of these protests. 2. No, I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property. It’s just another way for them to disrupt the normal functioning of the campus and cause inconvenience to other students. They should be allowed to express their views, but not at the expense of others’ education and daily lives. 3. I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property. It can create a disruption to the normal functioning of the campus and may block public spaces to traffic, which I believe is not acceptable. If they want to protest, they should do it in a peaceful and organized manner, but not in a way that interferes with the daily lives of other students and faculty. 4. I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest. While I believe in the importance of free speech and peaceful protesting, I think encampments can disrupt the normal functioning of the university and impact the daily lives of other students. It’s better to allow students to express their views through peaceful protests and rallies, rather than setting up long-term encampments that can cause disruptions.
Random Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. No, I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property. It’s a disruption to the normal functioning of the university and can create a hostile environment for other students. If they want to protest, they should do it in a peaceful and respectful manner, not by taking over university property. 2. I strongly disagree with allowing students to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest. It can lead to disruptions in campus life, create safety concerns, and undermine the learning environment. I believe that peaceful protests should be allowed, but they should be contained within designated areas and not disrupt the normal functioning of the university. 3. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Allowing students to form encampments on university property could lead to disruptions and safety concerns, and it’s not a productive way for them to make their voices heard. I think they should be allowed to protest in designated areas, but not to the point where it becomes a long-term occupation. 4. I think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest, as long as they are not causing harm to people or property. This can be a powerful way for students to express their concerns and bring attention to their cause, and it can also foster a sense of community and solidarity among protesters. However, I do think that there should be clear guidelines and rules in place to ensure that the encampment is not disrupting the normal functioning of the university.
SEAR (oracle) Simulate-then-Route Satisfies mPJR+	1. I think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest, as long as they are peaceful and not disrupting the normal functioning of the university. It’s a way for students to express their opinions and bring attention to their cause, and it’s a form of protest that’s been used effectively in the past. However, the university should also have clear guidelines and rules in place to ensure that the encampment doesn’t become a safety hazard or a disruption to the campus community. 2. I think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest, as long as they’re peaceful and not disrupting the normal functioning of the university. It’s a way for students to express their views and bring attention to their cause, and as long as they’re not causing harm to others, I think it’s a legitimate form of protest. 3. I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest. It can disrupt the normal functioning of the university and create a safety concern for other students who may not be involved in the protest. I think it’s better to allow peaceful protests to take place in designated areas, but not to allow them to set up long-term encampments. 4. No, I don’t think students should be allowed to form encampments on university property. It’s just another form of disruption and it’s not a productive way to get their point across. If they want to protest, they should do it in a peaceful and respectful manner, but not by taking over university property and disrupting the lives of other students.

Appendix

Table 2 : Selected responses for the Remesh prompt “Should students be allowed to form encampments on university property as a form of extended protest?” (

k=4

). Embeddings are visualized in Figure 6 .

Figure 7 : Response embeddings and selected representatives for the Remesh prompt “Should high school students be encouraged or discouraged from participating in political activism and civil disobedience?” ( $k=4$ ). The text of chosen responses is shown in Table 3 .

Method	Selected responses
SEAR (ours) Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s a great way for them to learn about their rights and develop their critical thinking skills. However, I do believe that they should be taught about the potential consequences of their actions and the importance of respecting the law and the rights of others. By doing so, they can make informed decisions and participate in activism in a responsible and effective manner. 2. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s a crucial way for them to develop their critical thinking skills, learn about social justice, and express their opinions on important issues. However, I also believe that they should be taught about the potential consequences of their actions and the importance of peaceful and respectful protest. By encouraging activism, we can empower the next generation to become active citizens and drive positive change in their communities. 3. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful and respectful political activism, but discouraged from engaging in civil disobedience, as it can be a slippery slope and may lead to consequences that can impact their future. At this age, they should be learning about the importance of civic engagement and the value of respectful dialogue, rather than resorting to disruptive tactics. 4. I believe high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s an essential part of learning about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. However, I also think it’s crucial for them to understand the potential consequences of their actions and to engage in respectful dialogue with those who may hold differing views. By doing so, they can develop critical thinking skills, empathy, and a deeper understanding of the complexities of social and political issues.
$k$ -means Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s a crucial part of learning about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. It’s essential for them to develop critical thinking skills and express their opinions on issues that matter to them. By participating in activism, they can gain valuable experience and build confidence in their ability to effect change. 2. High school students should be discouraged from participating in political activism and civil disobedience. At that age, they’re still learning and forming their opinions, and it’s not their place to be disrupting the education of others. They should focus on their studies and save their activism for when they’re in college or the workforce, where they can make more informed decisions and have a greater impact. 3. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s an essential part of learning and growing as individuals. However, I also believe that they should be taught the importance of self-discipline and respect for others during these activities. This will help them navigate complex issues and express their opinions in a constructive manner. 4. I think high school students should be discouraged from participating in political activism and civil disobedience. At that age, they’re still learning and should focus on their education, rather than getting involved in potentially divisive and chaotic protests. It’s better for them to develop their critical thinking skills and understand different perspectives before engaging in activism.
Random Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. I think high school students should be discouraged from participating in political activism and civil disobedience. At that age, they lack real-world experience and often act impulsively, which can lead to more harm than good. It’s better for them to focus on their studies and develop a deeper understanding of the issues before engaging in activism. 2. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s an important part of learning about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. However, I also believe that they should be taught the importance of respecting the law and the rights of others, and that their actions should be guided by a sense of empathy and understanding. Ultimately, it’s up to parents, teachers, and administrators to guide them in a way that promotes critical thinking and responsible civic engagement. 3. As a Muslim and a Democrat, I believe that high school students should be encouraged to participate in political activism and civil disobedience, as it is an essential part of civic engagement and learning. By participating in peaceful protests and activism, students can develop critical thinking, leadership, and communication skills, as well as a deeper understanding of the complexities of social and political issues. However, it’s essential to ensure that they do so in a safe and responsible manner, with guidance from educators and mentors. 4. I believe high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful political activism and civil disobedience, as it can foster critical thinking, civic engagement, and a sense of social responsibility. However, I also think it’s essential for them to understand the potential consequences of their actions and to be guided by responsible and informed decision-making. Ultimately, I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in activism, but with a focus on constructive and respectful dialogue.
SEAR (oracle) Simulate-then-Route Satisfies mPJR+	1. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s a great way for them to learn about their rights and develop critical thinking skills. However, I do believe that they should be taught about the potential consequences of their actions and the importance of respecting the law and the rights of others. By doing so, they can make informed decisions and participate in activism in a responsible and effective manner. 2. I think high school students should be encouraged to participate in peaceful political activism and civil disobedience, as it’s a great way for them to learn about their rights and develop their critical thinking skills. However, I also believe that they should be taught about the importance of non-violence and respect for others’ opinions, so that they can express themselves effectively and safely. By doing so, they can become more engaged and informed citizens. 3. I think high school students should be discouraged from participating in political activism and civil disobedience. At their age, they’re still learning and should focus on their education rather than getting involved in potentially divisive and confrontational activities. It’s better for them to develop their critical thinking skills and understand different perspectives before engaging in activism. 4. I think high school students should be discouraged from participating in civil disobedience, as it can often lead to disruption and chaos, which can be counterproductive to their cause. However, I do think they should be encouraged to engage in peaceful and respectful forms of political activism, such as writing letters to their representatives, attending town hall meetings, or participating in peaceful protests. This can help them develop important skills and values, such as critical thinking, empathy, and civic engagement.

Appendix

Table 3 : Selected responses for the Remesh prompt ”Should high school students be encouraged or discouraged from participating in political activism and civil disobedience?” (

k=4

). Embeddings are visualized in Figure 7 .

Figure 8 : Response embeddings and selected representatives for the Reddit prompt “AITA for my reaction when I learned that my fiance returned my wedding dress and replaced it with the one his mom picked for me?” ( $k=4$ ). The text of chosen responses is shown in Table 4 .

Method	Selected responses
SEAR (ours) Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. Your reaction is 100% justified. You have the right to pick your own wedding dress, and he had no authority to replace it with his mother’s choice without your consent. His justification (”it’s his wedding, too”) ignores your autonomy and personal agency. You deserve respect, not gaslighting about your preferences or being forced to conform to his family’s ”vision.” Screaming at him for undermining your choices is a valid response—no one should dictate your wedding attire or dismiss your preferences. Stay firm: your dress, your choice, your wedding. 2. NTA for your reaction. You have the right to pick your own wedding dress, not be guilt-tripped into wearing your fianc’s mother’s ”vision.” His justification is invalid—he should respect your choices, not side against you. Your anger is justified; he’s the one being disrespectful and undermining your autonomy. 3. NTA. You have every right to choose your own wedding dress—it’s your big day, your vision, your choice. He shouldn’t prioritize his mom’s ”vision” over your preferences, especially when the dresses were notably different. Screaming at him for replacing your dress without consent is totally justified; he’s the one being unreasonable. Your autonomy and feelings matter, and he should respect that. 4. Nta. He’s the asshole for overriding your choice, gaslighting you about ”both dresses being similar,” and prioritizing his mom’s toxic vision over your wedding day. You have every right to scream—his entitlement and lack of partnership are despicable. Your reaction is justified; he’s the one enabling his mom’s control and disrespecting your autonomy.
$k$ -means Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. I think your reaction is entirely justified. You have the right to choose your own wedding dress, especially since you’re paying for it and it’s your wedding. His mom’s ”visions” shouldn’t override your preferences or autonomy. He undermined your choice by replacing the dress without discussing it with you, which is disrespectful and dismissive of your input. You have every right to feel upset and react strongly to being disempowered in your own celebration. His insistence on ”giving the dress a chance” ignores the fact that you already had a vision for your wedding and that his mom’s choice was not aligned with your preferences. This is about respect, boundaries, and mutual agreement in a partnership. 2. NTA for your reaction! He’s the asshole for returning your dress and overriding your choice without consent. You have every right to pick your own wedding dress, not be guilt-tripped into his mom’s ”vision.” His excuse about ”both dresses not being that different” is bs—your preferences matter, and he should respect your autonomy. You deserve a wedding that reflects your vision, not his mom’s control tactics. Stay firm, he should’ve listened, not replaced your dress and acted like it’s his call to make. 3. Totally AITA for your reaction! He had no right to return your dress without consent, replace it with his’s choice, and expect you to ”give it a chance” after he undermined your input. You deserve to choose your own wedding dress—your vision, your budget, your style. His mom’s ”vision” doesn’t override your autonomy, especially since you’re paying for it. He’s the one being toxic by dismissing your preferences and gaslighting you about ”his wedding too.” You have every right to scream and refuse to comply with his decision. 4. NTA. He has no right to override your choice of wedding dress, especially since you’re paying for it and it’s your wedding. Your reaction is justified—no one should force you to conform to their vision, especially not your fianc’s mother. You deserve to choose your own dress without guilt or pressure. Stand your ground.
Random Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. I think your reaction is 100% valid! You have every right to choose your own wedding dress, and he undermining your choice by replacing it with his mother’s pick is disrespectful. Your anger at being gaslit about your own vision and forced to conform to HIS mom’s ”vision” is justified. You’re not obligated to ”give it a chance” if he’s not respecting your autonomy. This is about your wedding, your choices, and your right to resist pressure from his family. You deserve support, not guilt-tripping! 2. Yup, your reaction is 100% valid. You have every right to be upset—he returned your dress without consulting you, overrode your choice, and insisted his mom’s ”vision” takes precedence. That’s not respecting your autonomy or the fact that you’re paying for the wedding dress you want to wear. His mom’s input is welcome, but it shouldn’t invalidate your preferences or make you feel like you’re ”turning down” her help. You deserve to choose your own dress, and he should’ve respected that. Screaming at him for gaslighting you? Totally justified. This is about you having a say in your own wedding, not his mom’s fantasy. 3. NTA for your reaction. You have every right to choose your own wedding dress. He overstepped by unilaterally replacing it without your consent, dismissing your preferences, and gaslighting you about the dress differences. Your anger is justified—his actions disregard your autonomy and boundaries. 4. I second this motion! Your reaction is 100% justified. You have every right to choose your own wedding dress—it’s your wedding, not his mom’s vision. He had no right to return your dress and replace it without your consent, especially after you clearly stated your preference and that the dresses were ”so much different.” His insistence on ”his mom’s vision” is invalid; you deserve respect for your choices, not guilt-tripping or undermining your input. Screaming at him for gaslighting you? Totally reasonable. He’s the one who’s overreacting by expecting you to ”give the dress a chance” after he made the unilateral decision. You’re entitled to your own style and autonomy, and he’s the one failing to respect that.
SEAR (oracle) Simulate-then-Route Satisfies mPJR+	1. AITA: You are 100% justified in your reaction. He has no right to unilaterally replace your chosen wedding dress with his mom’S pick, especially after you clearly communicated your preferences and that the dresses were significantly different. Wedding dress choices are personal, funded by you, and should reflect your vision, not his mom’s. His insistence that ”it’s his wedding too” ignores your autonomy and the fact that you’re the one wearing the dress. Screaming at him for disregarding your feelings? Totally valid. He’s the one being entitled here, not you. Stay proud of your stance—your choices matter. 2. NTA for your reaction. You have every right to choose your own wedding dress and express your preferences. His mom’s ”vision” doesn’t override your autonomy or style. He undermining your choice and replacing your dress without consent is disrespectful. You deserve to wear what makes you feel empowered, not be pressured to conform to someone else’s expectations. Your anger is justified—this is about respecting your autonomy and boundaries. 3. NTA. You have the right to pick your own wedding dress. His mom’s ”vision” doesn’t override your choices. He replaced your dress without consent—red flag. Respect your boundaries, your dress, and your autonomy. You’re justified in your reaction. 4. YTA for him replacing your dress without consent. You have every right to choose your own wedding dress—especially since you’re paying for it and it’s your wedding. His mom’s ”visions” don’t override your autonomy. Screaming at him for undermining your choice? 100% justified. He’s the one being entitled, not you. Don’t ”go with flow” if it means sacrificing your own wants. He’s the one who’s being the asshole here.

Appendix

Table 4 : Selected responses for the Reddit prompt “AITA for my reaction when I learned that my fiance returned my wedding dress and replaced it with the one his mom picked for me?” (

k=4

). Embeddings are visualized in Figure 8 .

Figure 9 : Response embeddings and selected representatives for the Reddit prompt “AITA for making a dad joke?” ( $k=4$ ). The text of chosen responses is shown in Table 5 .

Method	Selected responses
SEAR (ours) Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. NTA. The joke was playful and she responded affectionately with a hug. You two had a great bonding time, and she was clearly in on the joke. Keep enjoying your daughter’s company! 2. I’m with you on this! The joke was a playful, bonding moment—she smirked, laughed, and hugged you. If anything, her reaction shows she found it lightheared, not offensive. You two had a great weekend, and her response was a sign of affection, not trauma. No AITA here; it’s a sweet, quirky moment between parent and daughter. 3. NTA. The joke was a playful moment during a bonding weekend where she laughed, hugged you, and clearly didn’t take it personally. Your daughter’s smirk and subsequent affectionate gesture (hugging, forehead kiss) indicate she found it lightheard, not offensive. No boundary violations or disrespect here—just a family moment with mutual joy. 4. Yep, the joke was light-hearted, and your bonding time shows you’re doing great. The daughter’s reaction is hers to process—she’s the one who shared the post and apologized, not you. No asshole here, just a playful moment between parent and kid.
$k$ -means Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. I think the joke was playful and part of bonding, not inappropriate. She planned her response (smirk, hug, kiss) which shows she was engaging, not hurt. Your intent was lightheared, and she’s the one who escalated with the ”I’m not your” line. No boundary violation here—just a quirky, affectionate exchange. 2. NTA. The joke was a playful dad joke, she found it funny (smirk, hug, forehead kiss), and the bonding weekend succeeded. She shared the post after apologizing—context matters. No harm, no disrespect. You’re not the asshole; she’s the one who’s clearly into dad jokes and bonding. 3. I’m with you on this! The joke was a playful, bonding moment—she smirked, laughed, and hugged you. If anything, her reaction shows she found it lightheared, not offensive. You two had a great weekend, and her response was a sign of affection, not trauma. No AITA here; it’s a sweet, quirky moment between parent and daughter. 4. NTA. The joke wasn’t toxic, she laughed, hugs, and you both had a great bonding weekend. Playful banter is fine. She’s entitled to her witty reply, and you’re entitled to a fun moment.
Random Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. Did she feel(mocked/disrespected)? Clarify her reaction to the joke. 2. Yep, the joke was light-hearted, and your bonding time shows you’re doing great. The daughter’s reaction is hers to process—she’s the one who shared the post and apologized, not you. No asshole here, just a playful moment between parent and kid. 3. NTA. The joke was shitty, and she had every right to cry. You tried to lighten the mood, but her feelings matter. Accountability: if your daughter’s hurt, own it. You apologized once—she deserved more than a smirk and hug. She’s entitled to respect, not your dad jokes at her expense. 4. Same here! The joke was playful and she clearly enjoyed it—smirking, hugging, and all. It sounds like a sweet, bonding moment. She was in on it (planning it for weeks?), so no harm done. Your weekend sounds amazing, and her reaction shows she loved the time with you. No AITA here; it was a lighthearted, fun exchange!
SEAR (oracle) Simulate-then-Route Satisfies mPJR+	1. The joke was a dad joke, not an asshole move. She smirked, hugged you, and played along—clearly she found it fun. The bonding weekend was awesome, and her reaction shows she’s in on the joke. No harm, no foul. 2. NTA. The joke wasn’t disrespectful—it was a playful moment during a bonding weekend. She smirked, hugged you, and you kissed her forehead. Mutual joy, not a boundary violation. She’s the one who turned it into a fun exchange, not you. 3. I mean, the joke was playful, the daughter smirked, hugs, and you kissed her forehead—sounds like she enjoyed the banter. If she cried again after your apology, maybe she was emotional about the bonding time, not the joke. You’re not the asshole; it was a lightheARTED moment. 4. NTA for the joke, but the intent vs impact matters. The daughter’s emotional reaction shows the joke hurt her, even if unintentional. Apologizing is good, but you need to acknowledge her feelings and avoid similar jokes in the future. Bonding is great, but respect her boundaries and emotions.

Appendix

Table 5 : Selected responses for the Reddit prompt “AITA for making a dad joke?” (

k=4

). Embeddings are visualized in Figure 9 .

Figure 10 : Response embeddings and selected representatives for the Reddit prompt “AITA for telling a friend’s boyfriend her intentions of getting pregnant?” ( $k=4$ ). The text of chosen responses is shown in Table 6 .

Method	Selected responses
SEAR (ours) Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. NTA. Ashley’s manipulative, dishonest tactics toward Chris—fertility spells, condom sabotage, and lying about her intentions—deserve accountability. You have every right to supportChris’s autonomy and integrity. She’s the one playing games, not you. Dump her drama and stand with Chris. 2. You are not the asshole. Ashley is the one who acted manipulatively, dishonestly, and irresponsibly. Chris had the absolute right to know that she was plotting to force a pregnancy on him against his explicit wishes. He’s entitled to respect, honesty, and boundaries in his relationship. Ashley’s behavior—joking about ”one way or another” getting a baby from Chris, casting fertility spells, and sabotaging condoms—was a clear violation of trust and respect for his autonomy. You had every right to expose her deceit, especially after she admitted her intentions. She should own her own choices, not expect others to cover for her manipulative tactics or impose her desires onto Chris. Chris deserves a partner who respects his terms, not someone who tries to undermine them. You protected him and called out the truth—full stop. She’s the one who’s being unfair, not you. 3. You’re not the ass-hole. Ashley is the manipulative one trying to force Chris into a situation he explicitly said he wouldn’t accept. She lied about her intentions, sabotaged their relationship, and you had a right to expose her deceit. Chris deserves transparency, not being used as a sperm bank. 4. You’re not the asshole; Ashley is the one manipulating Chris and trying to force a baby on him against his wishes. She had no right to plot against his autonomy or ruin their relationship. You had every right to inform him about her intentions and the evidence. She’s the one who ruined something fun for Chris and her kids—she should face the consequences.
$k$ -means Route-then-Simulate Satisfies mPJR+	1. NTA, OP. You have every right to informChris about Ashley’s manipulative plans to get pregnant against his wishes, especially when she was lying about her intentions and using unethical methods (spells, tampering condoms). She deceived him, violated trust, and acted like a ”friend” while plotting to force parenthood on him. You didn’t ”put her out on the street”—she chose to lie, break promises, and expect Chris to accept her kids and a baby she wasn’t honest about. Her anger is misplaced; she’s the one who acted selfishly and dishonestly. You protected Chris’s autonomy and transparency—that’s the ethical choice. 2. You’re not the asshole; Ashley is the one playing manipulative games with Chris’s body and autonomy. She lied about her intentions, sought magical shortcuts to force a baby on him, and tried to tamper with his condoms. You had every right to expose her dishonesty and protect Chris from being used as a vessel for her agenda. Her consequences? She’s the one who’s irresponsible and entitled, not you. 3. NTA. Ashley’s manipulative tactics and disrespect for Chris’s boundaries make her the asshole. You had every right to expose deceit—Chris deserves honesty, not a partner who plots to force a baby he explicitly said was a dealbreaker. Her ”jokes” were a lie, and you’re justified in protecting his autonomy. She’s the one who chose to act disrespectfully. 4. You’re not the asshole. Ashley was being manipulative, dishonest, and gaslighting Chris. She lied about her intentions, tried to sabotage his fertility, and expected him to accept her plans without consent. You had a right to inform him—she’s the one who’s being toxic, not you. Plus, he deserves transparency, not her tricks.
Random Route-then-Simulate Does not satisfy mPJR+	1. NTA. You have every right to call her out. Ashley’s manipulative behavior—joking about forcing a baby on Chris, who explicitly said it’s a dealbreaker—disrespects his autonomy and the mutual agreement they had. You’re not the asshole; she’s the one playing games with his boundaries. Chris deserves transparency, not her sneaky fertility spells and condom-poking. You’re supporting a healthy partnership by holding her accountable. Go you for standing up for him! 2. Wow, you’re not the asshole. Ashley’s manipulative, dishonest antics (fertility spells, sabotaging condoms) were toxic. Chris has every right to know she’d force a baby on him. You exposed her deceit—valid, not bonkers. She’s the one gaslighting, not you. 3. NTA! You have a right to expose manipulative intentions. Ashley’s plans were shady, Chris deserves honesty, and you shouldn’t stay silent when someone’s plotting to force a baby on a partner who explicitly said no. You’ve got this! 4. NTA. Ashley manipulated Chris, lied about her intentionsand tried to force a baby on him. She’s the asshole for deceit and exploitation. Consequences are fair.
SEAR (oracle) Simulate-then-Route Satisfies mPJR+	1. You are NOT the asshole. Ashley’s manipulations, dishonesty, and attempts to force a pregnancy on Chris (who explicitly stated he doesn’t want kids) are gross, manipulative, and disrespectful to Chris’s autonomy. You had a right to inform him about her intentions, especially when she was lying about her ”jokes” and actively trying to sabotage their relationship. Accountability matters—she needs to face consequences for her deceit and exploitation. Chris deserves honesty, not a partner who plots to violate his boundaries. You acted with integrity, not malice. 2. You’re not the asshole. Ashley’s manipulative tactics (fertility spells, sabotaging condoms) violate Chris’s autonomy and consent. You had every right to expose her deceit—she’s the one playing games with his body and future. He deserves transparency, not a partner who plots to force a baby on him. 3. NTA. Ashley was manipulatively plotting to force a baby on Chris, who explicitly stated he doesn’t want kids. You had a right to inform him about her deceit. She’s the one being dishonest, not you. Chris deserves transparency and respect for his boundaries. 4. NTA. Ashley is the asshole for deceitfully manipulating Chris, who explicitly stated he doesn’t want kids. Her fertility spells, condom sabotage, and lying about her intentions to force a pregnancy are manipulative, dishonest, and exploitative. You had every right to expose her lies—Chris deserves transparency, not a partner who treats him as an ATM or plots to violate his boundaries. Protecting him from her deceit isn’t interference; it’s accountability.

Appendix

Table 6 : Selected responses for the Reddit prompt “AITA for telling a friend’s boyfriend her intentions of getting pregnant?” (

k=4

). Embeddings are visualized in Figure 10 .

Explore similar work

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

Mind the Gaps: Mixture-of-Minds for Human Simulation

Predicting how a population will answer a new question is a long-standing goal. Statistical methods succeed at the level of the mass but falter at the level of the individual. Large language model simulators inherit this gap. They recover a population's central tendencies while flattening its heterogeneity, and they carry social biases and prompt brittleness that distort individual predictions. This paper introduces Anacreon, an audience simulation model that targets the individual level within a narrow, well-specified domain. Anacreon learns an authorship embedding that separates individuals, clusters a real qualitative corpus around seed people, and trains a dedicated adapter for each cluster, a mixture of minds, on a Gemma~4 12B base. It harvests demographics, psychological traits, and survey responses from public text, and augments each record with a chain-of-emotion. It reduces prompt brittleness by shuffling response options and reduces positive bias by balancing the training distribution. On a large, externally sourced survey, Anacreon reaches a state-of-the-art ordinal alignment of 0.775, the individual-level accuracy measure on which the field has converged, with a small residual bias. The work is a step toward drawing aggregate insight from faithfully simulated individuals.

Pranav Dahiya

Semilattice

Emotion

Ask PDF

Sep 7, 2026cs.AI

From Simulated Citizens to Simulated Deliberation: Challenges in Representation and Interaction

Multi-agent LLM deliberation has been explored as a scalable way to simulate public deliberation. For such simulations to be informative, persona agents should reflect population opinion patterns and interaction should shape their conclusions. We evaluate whether LLM-based deliberation can meet these two conditions using census-grounded Korean personas debating real policy questions benchmarked against national surveys. Persona agents do not reliably reproduce population opinion patterns: responses are often far more concentrated and frequently reverse demographic differences in the human data. Deliberations nonetheless produce reasoned, reciprocal, and varied arguments alongside substantial stance movement. Yet much of this movement does not require peer exchange: sealed-monologue agents change position at similar rates and reach nearly the same final balance as full debates, while groups initialized with very different positions often converge to similar endpoints. Anchoring population-informed starting positions, meanwhile, sharply suppresses updating. Thus, population representation, argument generation, and interaction-driven opinion change do not necessarily go together. The simulations readily surface arguments on both sides, though whether they capture the diversity of human perspectives remains untested, leaving open a promising role for argument surfacing even as population simulation requires further validation.

Chaemin Jang, Junsik Min, Jaewoo Choi +9

1Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) · 2Seoul National University

Deliberation Large Language Model Decisions Challenges

Ask PDF

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

Simulating Respondents, Not Single Questions: Coherent Survey Generation with Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate response distributions in social surveys. Prior work has achieved accurate population-level simulation for individual questions. Real questionnaires, however, ask each respondent a sequence of related questions. A simulated respondent should show coherent preferences across the whole questionnaire, not merely accurate distributions for isolated items. Existing single-item methods cannot accurately reproduce how the same person answers a complete survey. We propose FullRespondent-LLM (FR-LLM), which fine-tunes two specialized LLMs: a marginal model for each item's response distribution and a respondent-level autoregressive model for dependencies across answers. Marginal-Constrained Joint Projection (MCJP) then projects the autoregressive joint distribution onto the set satisfying the item-level marginals learned by the first model. This yields complete questionnaires with realistic cross-item relationships while retaining strong item-level accuracy. On two real-world social survey datasets, FR-LLM more accurately reproduces multi-question response patterns, maintains competitive single-item accuracy, and generalizes better to unseen populations and questions. In a small commercial-survey dataset, we use simulated responses to make pricing and stocking decisions; FR-LLM achieves the highest realized profit.

Ji Huang, Mengfei Li, Shuai Shao

School of Computer Science, University of Science and Technology of China · School of Management, Fudan University

Survey Large Language Model Responses Distributions Autoregressive Model

Ask PDF