Computational Social Science

Hostile rhetoric toward social groups can normalize exclusion and justify mistreatment, as well as contribute to rising polarization and political violence. Efforts to moderate hostile rhetoric in online speech draw on foundational theories in social and moral psychology, and political science. However, these theories were developed largely in parallel, often propose different and sometimes conflicting accounts of how hostility develops, and have rarely been tested against each other in real discourse. The result is a fragmented understanding of the rhetorical mechanisms of hostility, without a clear sense of how they appear, and relate to each other, in real-world discourse. Using 2.86 million posts from TikTok, Truth Social, and Twitter/X during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we model the mechanisms of six foundational theories of intergroup hostility -- boundary construction, threat construction, scapegoating, negative evaluation, dehumanization, and action orientation -- within a common empirical framework to recover the broader organization of intergroup hostility rhetoric. Structurally, we find that boundary construction and threat construction anchor the system; temporally, we find that these mechanisms tend to follow a regular ordering: boundary construction, derogation, and action orientation tend to appear early; dehumanization and threat construction later; scapegoating latest. Mapping how these theoretical frameworks actually manifest in discourse bridges longstanding divisions across social science traditions and presents computational social science with a clearer empirical foundation for modeling intergroup hostility rhetoric beyond single-label detection.

The study of opinion dynamics in social networks is one of the key challenges in computational social science with direct relevance to understanding political polarization, misinformation, and health responses. Current approaches focus on simplified mathematical models that ignore linguistic and contextual factors related to belief updates or use Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulations that have not been validated against real data. We present a framework based on the concept of a digital twin to simulate opinion dynamics in social networks. The approach fills the gap by cloning a real-world Twitter network, assigns a set of attributes for agents (such as persona, emotions, centrality, stubbornness, and influence), and employs Mistral-7B to perform opinion update based on memory and social exposure. To evaluate the proposed approach, we validate it against two real Twitter datasets (COVID-19 discourse and U.S elections 2020). The results show that the capability of the proposed framework reproduces opinion trajectories and reduces individual prediction error by more than 50% compared to the best-performing classical baseline (Mistral-7B achieves Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = 0.150 and 0.121 on the COVID-19 and US Election 2020 datasets, respectively). We observe similar improvements in structural alignment (Delta_r = 0.120 and 0.180) and polarization dynamics (Delta_Var = 0.106 and 0.115) on the two datasets, respectively. Additionally, the ablation studies confirm that agent attributes, memory, and social exposure all contribute to the framework's predictive fidelity in reproducing opinion trajectories, with agent attributes being the most critical contributor. Overall, our results demonstrate that grounding Mistral-7B within empirically cloned interaction networks produces a realistic simulation framework capable of reproducing complex social dynamics.

Topic modeling is widely used in computational social sciences to identify latent themes in large text corpora. Traditional approaches rely on Bag-of-Words representations and generative models such as LDA, while recent methods like BERTopic operate on dense document embeddings. This paper introduces the Structural Contextual Probabilistic Topic Model (SCPTM), an architecture that incorporates syntactic dependency relations into topic inference. SCPTM represents a corpus as a heterogeneous graph of documents and words connected by lexical and syntactic edges, processed through a Graph Attention Network within a Variational Autoencoder to produce probabilistic, mixed-membership topic distributions. We evaluate seven topic modeling techniques (including four SCPTM ablations) across four corpora differing in register and discourse structure. Our framework combines coherence (C_V, C_NPMI), topic diversity, clustering-label alignment (NMI), and phrase-level diagnostics (complementarity and valence gap). Results show that SCPTM's neural architecture yields substantial gains in document-topic alignment over generative baselines, but these gains are attributable to the variational encoder rather than to syntax. Syntax contributes to topic diversity, where graph-augmented variants outperform the no-graph baseline across all corpora, and to descriptor quality: dependency paths capture predicate-argument structures and stance in deliberative registers, while proving redundant in technical and institutional corpora. The valence gap is positive across all variants, but driven primarily by phrase grouping rather than syntactic filtering. We conclude that syntactic encoding matters conditionally: it benefits action-oriented, argumentative texts, but introduces noise in informational or administrative registers.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape communication, learning, work, creativity, and decision-making, yet social-science research on these developments remains fragmented. We map this emerging field using a curated corpus of 198 papers reviewed in full and a field-scale corpus of 47,719 published papers from five bibliographic databases. Combining sentence embeddings, K-means clustering, within-cluster Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), author and LLM classifications, and structural topic modeling, we identify three domains: LLM as Social Minds, examining socially interpretable model behavior; LLM Societies, examining collective dynamics among interacting model-based agents; and LLM-Human Interactions, examining how people perceive, use, and are affected by LLMs. These domains contain 13 subcategories spanning reasoning, personality and bias, behavioral games, collective intelligence, simulation, trust, work, creativity, and education. In the curated corpus, the three-domain solution is highly stable under resampling (adjusted Rand index = 0.952), and K-means assignments agree with author full-text classifications for 77.78% of papers. At field scale, 13 of 15 topics map onto the taxonomy, while K-means and structural-topic-model domains agree for 73.83% of overlapping papers. LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 78.02% of domain-mapped topic mass, but venue analysis reveals a contrasting pattern: Social Minds and LLM Societies together account for 66.37% of highly cited papers in leading conference venues, whereas LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 76.81% in the corresponding journal subset. The resulting taxonomy provides a reproducible framework for understanding how model behavior, agent interaction, and institutional context jointly shape the social consequences of LLMs.

As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse social contexts, alignment can no longer be framed as the optimization of a single, unified set of values. Instead, systems must be able to recognize, represent, and respond to multiple legitimate perspectives. This has led to growing interest in pluralistic alignment, which seeks to move beyond one-size-fits-all models of appropriate behaviour. However, current approaches often lack a clear account of how values are socially organized, contested, and coordinated in practice. In this paper, we argue that social theory provides essential conceptual and design resources for addressing these challenges. Drawing on established traditions in sociology, we show how perspectives can be understood as structured by roles, shaped through interaction, and distributed across fields of power and expertise. We translate these insights into concrete implications for AI system design, including role-based representations, structured coordination among perspectives, and context-sensitive evaluation. For agentic systems, this requires aligning not only final outputs, but also the role activations, deliberative traces, aggregation rules, and feedback loops through which those outputs are produced. Our contribution is to reposition pluralistic alignment as a problem of socially grounded coordination rather than output diversification. We outline a design space for systems that engage multiple perspectives in structured and accountable ways, and we identify directions for future work to implement and empirically evaluate these approaches in real-world settings.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as proxies for human study participants in social science experiments, yet the fidelity of this practice has rarely been tested directly. We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates, comparing LLM outputs 1-to-1 against ground truth data from 391 UK participants on Prolific, who updated their stances on three discussion topics after reading Reddit comments. Each participant was simulated by an LLM conditioned on a persona derived from their demographic and personality trait data. We find that some LLMs (Qwen3-32B and GPT-5-Mini) can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' actual initial stances. All six models fail to simulate initial stances themselves and to produce faithful belief updates from self-generated stances. Three systematic biases emerge across all models: overrepresentation of neutral positions, more frequent but smaller belief shifts than humans, and a failure to rank comments by convincingness. Demographic and personality trait personas had no consistent effect on fidelity. LLM simulations of human belief dynamics are only reliable when grounded in realistic starting conditions, that current multi-round social media simulations rarely provide.

High-quality, diverse data are vital for large language models (LLMs) but remain scarce and costly. Data synthesis is a viable alternative and succeeds on closed tasks, yet the humanities and social sciences (HSS) are overlooked, and their open-ended nature makes synthesis challenging. Moving beyond prior capability-centric, fragmented attempts, we adopt a subject-centric paradigm, define the first HSS domain system covering 14 mainstream fields, and introduce HSS-Synth, the first data synthesis pipeline for HSS. HSS-Synth comprises: (1) constructing seed documents from web corpora via multi-step filtering and text refinement evaluated by a judge; (2) specifying "requirements + persona" to backtranslate seed documents into diverse yet faithful instructions with a strict Q&A alignment check; and (3) breaking LLM response limits via teacher-forced Answering that feeds seed documents during response generation to anchor semantics, reduce hallucinations, and preserve tone and integrity. HSS-Synth yields 237k high-quality, diverse instruction-tuning samples that outperform 14 leading baselines on 16 benchmarks. The fine-tuned Qwen3-8B-Base sets a new SOTA and approaches the official Qwen3-8B, improving both human preference and knowledge capabilities without performance seesaws. Extensive experiments demonstrate HSS-Synth's robustness and transferability. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/pengr/HSS-Synth.

While data synthesis for large language models (LLMs) is prevalent, it primarily targets domains with verifiable answers, overlooking open-ended humanities and social sciences (HSS), where nuanced quality judgments matter more than objective correctness. This makes preference alignment a natural paradigm for broad HSS tasks. Yet existing methods are either costly or not tailored to broad HSS disciplines. We thus propose BridgeAlign, among the first preference-alignment pipelines for broad HSS disciplines, with three phases: i) Seed Curation: curating HSS seed documents from web corpora via heuristic/LLM-based filtering and text refinement; ii) Preference Data Synthesis: generating preference triplets via persona-based instruction inversion with Q&A consistency checks; iii) Preference Optimization: moving beyond naive human-vs-model heuristics by first grounding preferences in HSS quality rubric, then generating transitional responses via controlled quality degradation to form near-boundary preference pairs for finer-grained quality discrimination. Aligning over 210k synthetic preference samples, BridgeAlign enables Qwen3-8B to achieve the best average across 17 benchmarks against 11 strong baselines; importantly, leading on both human-preference and knowledge-based capabilities at once, with no trade-off between them, as supported by extensive experiments and contextualized by existing theories.

Bibliometric indicators - citation counts, h-indexes, co-authorship networks - have long anchored science, technology, and innovation (STI) analytics, yet suffer from temporal lag, semantic shallowness, and an inability to capture the non-linear dynamics of contemporary knowledge ecosystems. Dynamic knowledge graphs and large language models (LLMs) have each been proposed as remedies, but neither is sufficient alone: existing scholarly knowledge graphs remain largely static, while LLM-driven pipelines are prone to hallucination, opacity, and corpus bias without structured grounding. This paper proposes a hybrid, symbolic-first framework integrating all three traditions under explicit methodological constraint. Organized across five layers - an open scholarly data backbone, a dynamic versioned knowledge graph, a constrained LLM-assisted semantic augmentation layer, a multi-layer validation pipeline, and an analytics layer - the framework positions LLMs strictly as generators of provisional candidate enrichments. Candidates become analytically admissible only after passing structural, evidentiary, comparative, and selective expert validation, with full provenance recorded at every stage. The analytics layer supports both established bibliometric indicators and extended graph-based analyses, including trend emergence detection, science-to-technology pathway mapping, and policy-oriented gap analysis. The framework's central theoretical contribution is treating validation as the mediating principle between semantic flexibility and epistemic discipline, enabling STI analytics that is semantically richer and temporally more responsive than static bibliometrics while remaining aligned with the evidentiary standards of science-of-science research. Governance considerations addressing reproducibility, bias, and auditability are also discussed.

The formation of political coalitions is a complex negotiation driven by both concrete policy objectives and deep-seated ideological convictions. While Large Language Models (LLMs) open new avenues for computational political science, the neutrality and helpfulness biases instilled by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) prevent them from sustaining steadfast partisan behaviour. We present a multi-agent framework that reconciles factual grounding with ideological alignment by combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): DPO instils aggressive party-specific personas, while a per-party RAG pipeline keeps each agent bounded to its official manifesto. We operationalize the framework on the 2019 Flemish election, deploying the partisan agents in a hub-and-spoke negotiation arbitrated by a formateur. To make the emergent negotiation interpretable, we introduce a Multi-Layered Information Lineage Topology (MILT) that traces every clause in the final agreement back to its manifesto origin and classifies it into five provenance states, a Coalition Influence Score (CIS) that aggregates these traceable contributions to identify which party shaped the agreement, and a real-world grounding pass that benchmarks each simulated provision against the historically adopted coalition agreement. Across three independent simulations the framework yields a stable winner and ranking (N-VA ahead of CD&V and Open Vld), and manifesto-anchored lineage reliably predicts real-world materialization whereas hallucinated content does not. The result is a transparent, scalable testbed for the ex-ante exploration of party compatibility and formateur-mediated compromise.

Computational social science increasingly relies on automated preprocessing pipelines -- speaker diarization, ASR transcript cleaning, sentence segmentation -- to convert raw media into analyzable text. When these pipelines produce different outputs from the same input, two distinct sources of instability can arise: the preprocessing pipeline itself (diarization method, segmentation rules) and the downstream measurement instrument (LLM annotation vs.\ keyword lexicon). Using 256 YouTube interviews across 41 public figures from five domains, we compare two speaker-diarization pipelines and two measurement methods, all targeting the coupling between affective valence and epistemic modality. We find that (1) preprocessing pipeline sensitivity is concentrated in speakers with limited video samples (N $\leq 5$); for the four best-sampled speakers (N $\geq 16$), the mean absolute pipeline-induced change in $r(\text{neg}, \text{emph})$ is only $0.13$; (2) cross-method disagreement is larger and more systematic -- the LLM and keyword-lexicon methods assign opposite coupling directions to several well-sampled speakers, even within the same preprocessing pipeline; and (3) aggregate valence proportions are highly stable ($|Δp(\text{neg})| < 6$pp) regardless of pipeline or method, masking both sources of instability. The contribution is a diagnostic framework that separates pipeline effects from measurement effects: researchers studying cross-dimensional relationships in interview data should verify that their conclusions are robust to both sources of variation, with particular attention to measurement method choice.

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social science methodology. Researchers increasingly prompt language models to generate quantitative measurements of social concepts, for example labeling data or simulating survey responses. Yet LLMs pose methodological challenges including bias, hallucination, and brittleness across contexts, with unclear threats to validity. Standard practices and norms for addressing these challenges are still emerging. We collect and systematically analyze validation practices in a comprehensive corpus of papers from eight flagship social science journals that use LLMs as measurement instruments. We find that LLM-generated measurements frequently play a central role in empirical analyses, yet validation practices are inconsistent and limited. We outline complementary strategies for more robust validation, pointing toward better norms and standards around the use of LLMs in social science.

Large Language Model (LLM) social simulations are a promising research method, but they are not yet faithful enough to be adopted widely. In this work, we investigate whether the current scaling paradigm in language modeling is likely to close these gaps, or whether simulation fidelity is orthogonal to general capabilities and therefore deserving of more research attention. We use scaling laws to study the relationship between LLMs' compute scale, general capability benchmarks, and the fidelity of social simulation in three representative sub-domains: opinion modeling, behavioral simulation, and longitudinal forecasting. Surprisingly, we discover strong compute scaling in all three settings, using a suite of 85 transformer LLMs with the Qwen3 architecture pre-trained on the DCLM web text corpus under fixed-compute budgets from $10^{18}$ to $10^{20}$ FLOPs. Then we evaluate 35 larger and more capable open-weight models up to 70B parameters, allowing us to predict downstream accuracy from loss. This reveals that the majority of behavioral and opinion simulation tasks will rapidly improve with scale, particularly when they involve populations that are well-represented in English web corpora. Longitudinal forecasting and underrepresented opinions scale more slowly, especially when they are less correlated with general knowledge and reasoning benchmarks like MMLU. In behavior simulation, scaling fails to improve model calibration with human cognitive biases like risk aversion, as well as human heuristics like learning correlated rewards from related tasks. On these tasks, even fine-tuned models fail to noticeably scale up performance from 0.5B to 8B parameters. Taken together, we conclude that scale will improve social simulations in most settings, but outliers exist, and improvements will be less reliable in low-resource domains.

Text scaling, the task of positioning political actors on an ideological scale, is a fundamental task in political analysis. To ease the need for manual analysis, various NLP methods have been proposed for this task, including classification- and regression-based approaches, showing successes as well as limitations. The goal of our paper is to consolidate the state of the art in this area. We ask two questions: (a) Can the performance of scaling methods be improved by predicting scales not individually but jointly? (b) Is there a middle ground between classification and regression?

Whether political elites organise into rent-seeking coalitions that capture public resources or civic networks that sustain governance is a central question in comparative politics. Yet observing these complex, informal, and adversarial ties at scale has historically required intensive manual coding, while automated text-as-data methods have largely been limited to simple co-occurrence. Recent large language model (LLM) approaches offer a path forward but often rely on proprietary APIs, lack cross-lingual capability, and struggle with scalable entity resolution. We present a modular, fully open-weight pipeline for multilingual joint entity-relation extraction that builds signed, temporal knowledge graphs from massive unstructured news corpora. It combines span-based named-entity recognition (NER) with a three-stage linking cascade mapping mentions to language-independent Wikidata identifiers; a high-throughput, ontology-constrained mixture-of-experts model then uses guided decoding to extract directed, signed relationships grounded in a domain ontology. A full-coverage spot-check against a 3491-relation gold standard shows high textual correctness (68.2% strict to 93.7% lenient). Two large-scale case studies validate the pipeline against the public record. In Austria, it reconstructs a political party's complete lifecycle, dating internal fractures and tracking personnel into successor factions and court convictions. In a Polish corpus, it uncovers the overlapping economic and governance networks of state-enterprise patronage, alongside the structurally balanced, signed conflict network of the polarized Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO)--Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) duopoly. By bridging raw multilingual text and structured relational data, our framework provides a robust, replicable foundation for cross-national empirical computational social science.

There is a proliferation of work arguing for the use of synthetic data in scientific research. For example, social scientists are arguing for the use of LLM-generated "silicon samples" in pilot studies; AI evaluations increasingly rely on "LLM-as-a-judge" outputs; and proteomics research is accelerated by generative models that produce synthetic protein structures. These developments raise an intriguing possibility: synthetic data may help researchers ask more questions, run more studies, and accelerate discovery. But they also raise a fundamental concern: synthetic data can be biased, noisy, and misspecified. In this work, we propose statistical principles for using synthetic data in scientific research with provable validity guarantees. The key insight is a new technical condition that we call task exchangeability. Informally, this is a requirement that the researcher can identify historical tasks, for which real data is available, such that their current task of interest is exchangeable with the historical tasks in an appropriate mathematical sense. We develop methods for valid inference under task exchangeability, together with extensions that provide guarantees even beyond exchangeability. We demonstrate the framework on public opinion surveys with silicon samples and AI evaluation with autoraters.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks once reserved for trained researchers, including hypothesis generation, specification choice, and drafting conclusions. We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines. We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation. In a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets, an unconstrained multi-agent baseline produced critical failures in 72% of runs. Using the same underlying model, the same agent decomposition, and identical prompts for the shared reasoning agents, HLER reduced the failure rate to 16% by imposing three architectural commitments: LLMs reason but do not execute data work, data and estimation are handled deterministically, and three human decision gates bind the workflow. Fisher's exact test rejects equality of failure rates at p<0.001. Reliability gains were largest on the least publicly represented dataset, a Qing-dynasty population register, consistent with a task-based production model with Frechet-distributed output quality. An 80-run ablation suggests that deterministic computation and human gates contribute independently, with exploratory evidence of complementarity. We interpret HLER as a research harness rather than an autonomous AI scientist: it sharply reduces failures, makes residual weaknesses more visible, and prevents unreliable claims from being advanced as publication-ready outputs.

The deployment of LLM-based agents in scientific analysis raises opposing concerns: that agents may reduce methodological diversity, or that they may amplify the analytic flexibility through which researchers reach motivated conclusions. We argue these worries target two empirically separable layers: a design layer of methodological choices, and a verdict layer in which a decision rule maps estimates to a substantive claim. We test both by running 20 independent executions of Claude Code and Codex on a prominent immigration and social-policy against a many-analysts human baseline. At the design layer, Codex matches human methodological diversity and Claude Code produces nearly three times as many specifications; both agents' effect estimates remain broadly aligned with the human consensus, and no agent model exactly matches any human model. A prompt-induced anti-immigration researcher prior reorganizes each agent's methodological decisions but, unlike for biased human analysts in the same data, does not shift aggregate estimates or final verdicts; nor do agents reroute along the methodological axes humans use to bias their estimates. At the verdict layer, an explicit confirmatory prompt flips Claude Code's verdicts from 10% to 90% support while leaving its coefficient distribution essentially unchanged, operating through rule omission rather than rule softening. AI agents can rival or exceed human methodological diversity at the design layer while remaining vulnerable at the verdict layer. In our setting, the locus of AI bias is not estimation but interpretation.

Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that AI coding agents can reproduce published findings when provided with original data and code; yet systematic evaluation across social sciences remains limited. Existing evaluation benchmarks are insufficient, either small or conflate agent performance with problems in the reproduction materials themselves, such as code that fails to execute correctly. Here we introduce SocSci-Repro-Bench, a benchmark of 221 tasks spanning four disciplines and 13 substantive domains, constructed from studies whose results are either fully reproducible with available materials or demonstrably non-reproducible due to missing data, allowing us to isolate agents' reproduction capacity. Evaluating two frontier coding agents, Claude Code and Codex, we find that both can reproduce a large share of social science findings, with Claude Code substantially outperforming Codex. These reproduction rates considerably exceed those previously reported for general-purpose LLM-based agents on comparable reproducibility benchmarks. Both agents also perform strongly on a reasoning task requiring identification of underlying research questions, and additional analyses suggest that results are not primarily driven by memorization. Providing the original paper PDF alongside replication materials modestly improves performance but introduces bias on tasks where reproduction is impossible. We also show that agents can be nudged toward confirmatory specification search through subtle prompt framing. Together, these findings suggest that at least some frontier coding agents can serve as reliable executors of computational workflows while underscoring the need for careful benchmarking and prompt design as AI systems assume larger roles in scientific production.

Deep Research agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited extraordinary potential in automated paper writing tasks. However, existing systems rely heavily on literature retrieval and synthesis through internet and local knowledge bases, often resulting research in lacking insight and creativity in social science. To address this issue, we propose "Memory-Augmented Social Simulation (MASS)", an innovative paradigm that leverages highly realistic and research-oriented social simulations to enhance the creativity and empirical founding of LLMs-generated research. Specifically, MASS integrates three core components: dynamic goal-path planning with multi-level social norm restraint to guide the simulation, a multi-disciplinary behavior dataset for agent memory cold-start, and a structured forgetting mechanism inspired by the Ebbinghaus curve. Together, these ensure simulation authenticity and provide a robust empirical foundation for generating innovative scholarly papers. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, showing a 6.81% improvement in generation overall quality over foundation LLMs and 17.19% gain in Insight over strong baselines.

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.

High accuracy does not necessarily make an LLM a faithful coder. This issue matters because many social-science studies rely on expert-written codebooks to turn text into structured data. We study this problem in political event coding, a challenging source-target relation classification task beyond ordinary sentence-level classification, where models must determine what one actor did to another using detailed coding rules. We test whether expert codebooks become more effective when operationalized into LLM-friendly forms with clearer definitions, examples, retrieved context, and rules for difficult cases. We then evaluate behavioral reliability under controlled changes to label names, codebook order, and label-definition mappings. Clearer codebooks substantially improve classification performance, especially for fine-grained event classification. However, these predictive gains do not fully translate into behavioral reliability. Models may produce valid labels and recover definitions while still failing behavioral reliability tests under controlled codebook changes. These findings suggest that codebook-guided LLM systems should be evaluated not only by accuracy, but also by whether they preserve the coding logic that makes coded outputs meaningful for social-science research.

Controlled experiments are the backbone of machine learning research, but at the scale of modern foundation models, they have become prohibitively expensive. Instead, the community increasingly relies on research strategies that approximate the ideal experiment at a fraction of the cost: proxy experiments and scaling laws, observational studies with publicly available models, and single-run designs that leverage variation within individual training runs. In this work, we argue that there is no free lunch when approximating large-scale experiments on a compute budget. Specifically, savings in compute come at the cost of validity threats -- hidden and sometimes untestable assumptions that, when violated, can invalidate research claims. To help navigate such threats, we propose an evaluation framework that casts foundation model research as a causal inference problem. Within this framework, we evaluate different research strategies through four types of validity adapted from the empirical social sciences -- statistical, internal, external, and construct validity. We find that each strategy comes with a characteristic validity profile: proxy experiments trade external and construct validity for statistical and internal validity; observational studies face confounding and effect heterogeneity; and single-run designs are strained by interference between treated units. This analysis reveals several validity threats that have received insufficient attention in the literature. Overall, our evaluation framework provides researchers with a practical toolkit for scrutinizing validity threats in foundation model research~designs.

A core goal of computational social science is to discover interpretable differences in how language varies across outcomes of interest, such as political affiliation or instructional quality. Recent LLM-based hypothesis generation methods describe such differences in natural language, but select for globally discriminative patterns without accounting for covariates that shape the data based on researchers' domain knowledge. When covariates are ignored, selected patterns can reflect confounds rather than differences of substantive interest. We introduce conditional hypothesis generation, a framework that incorporates researcher-specified covariates to steer hypothesis discovery toward differences that hold within relevant subgroups. Two challenges arise: the target subgroup may be underrepresented (stratum imbalance), and the direction of a difference may reverse across subgroups (sign reversal). We propose two econometrics-inspired methods: one introduces feature--covariate interactions to detect sign reversals, and the other applies within-stratum demeaning and inverse-frequency reweighting to equalize underrepresented strata. Synthetic experiments show each method outperforms global baselines in its targeted setting, and expert evaluation on two real-world datasets confirms that covariate-aware generation surfaces more useful hypotheses within relevant subgroups.

Large language models have rapidly evolved in multilingual competence and reasoning capacity, enabling their integration into Social Sciences and Humanities research workflows. Yet existing evaluation paradigms remain anchored in task-based NLP benchmarks and fail to address interpretive validity, cultural situatedness, and epistemic mediation. This paper reconceptualizes multilingual reasoning LLMs as hermeneutic instruments that actively structure meaning production across linguistic and cultural contexts. Drawing on hermeneutics, philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, multilingual NLP research, and computational social science methodology, we develop a theoretically grounded framework for evaluating multilingual reasoning in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research. We articulate a rigorous experimental protocol with operationalized metrics for cultural alignment, cross-lingual stability, and reasoning faithfulness, along with transparency requirements tailored to interpretive research tasks. We illustrate the framework through a concrete application scenario involving multilingual political discourse analysis. The paper contributes a conceptual and methodological foundation for responsible integration of multilingual reasoning LLMs into computational social science infrastructures.

Many applications require statistically valid inference across many related tasks, while using only a handful of high-quality labels per hypothesis. In AI evaluation, these tasks may correspond to model behaviors across prompts, subgroups, or hypotheses; in social science surveys, they may correspond to related questions, populations, or measurement conditions. Prediction-powered inference (PPI) uses abundant but inexpensive proxy measurements to improve inference from limited, ground-truth labels, but commonly used methods treat tasks independently and therefore fail to exploit shared structure across related tasks. This limitation is especially important in settings where only a small number of labels are available per task. To address this issue, we introduce a multi-task prediction-powered inference framework that uses labeled data from related tasks to improve power while preserving task-specific inference. Our methods exploit the shared structure in the proxy-ground-truth relationship through cross-task recalibration, while retaining within-task rectification and power tuning to construct accurate point estimates and confidence intervals. We prove that efficiency gains beyond power-tuned PPI are only possible when the proxy-ground-truth relationship contains nonlinear structure; affine cross-task recalibrations are asymptotically equivalent to using the original proxy. We complement our theoretical findings with experiments on synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets, as well as a case study auditing language models on election-related information during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Using a large human-annotation study, we show that cross-task recalibration can substantially reduce confidence interval widths when labels are scarce.

The study of online discourse has become central to understanding societal polarization. While much research has focused on detecting overt toxicity, the subtle dynamics of social cohesion, meaning the interaction between divisive and unifying narratives, remain computationally underexplored (Bail, 2021; Gonzalez-Bailon and Lelkes, 2023). This paper presents Cohesion-6K, a manually and ChatGPT-assisted annotated dataset of six thousand Arabic public Facebook posts related to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. Each post is assigned to one of five discourse categories that represent a continuum from conflict to cohesion: Conflict, Resolution, Community Engagement, Supportive Interactions, and Shared Values. The annotation process combines expert human judgment with model-assisted pre-labeling verified by trained annotators, achieving substantial inter-annotator agreement (Cohens kappa = 0.85). Quantitative analysis reveals a consistent engagement gap, where conflict-oriented posts receive between two and four times more user interaction than resolution-oriented ones (p < 0.01). This pattern illustrates how divisive discourse tends to attract disproportionate visibility in Arabic social media spaces. Cohesion-6K provides a transparent and reproducible resource for the study of online cohesion and polarization. The dataset, annotation guidelines, and preprocessing code will be released for research use under an open license, supporting future work in computational social science, digital communication, and Arabic natural language processing.

This paper presents the Arabic Women and Society Corpus, a ten year collection of 252,487 public Arabic Facebook posts related to women's empowerment and social wellbeing. The corpus was collected from 51,660 pages across 77 countries between 2013 and 2024, resulting in more than 267 million user interactions. Each post includes engagement metrics such as shares, comments, and emotional reactions, providing a unique view of audience sentiment and social attention. The data were processed using an automated pipeline with language identification, normalization, and metadata cleaning to ensure reliability and reproducibility. The corpus enables large scale analysis of gender discourse, social reform, and emotional engagement across Arabic dialects. It supports research in Arabic natural language processing, computational social science, and digital communication studies. The dataset and accompanying documentation will be released under request for research use.

This paper introduces JobArabi, a large-scale corpus of Arabic job announcements collected from social media between January 2024 and October 2025. The dataset contains 20,528 public posts from X and captures more than two years of employment-related discourse across Arabic-speaking online communities. The corpus was compiled using a linguistically informed query framework covering 21 Arabic keyword families that reflect gendered, plural, formal, and dialectal expressions of recruitment language. The resulting dataset includes posts from institutional, commercial, and individual accounts and provides metadata such as timestamps, engagement indicators, and geolocation when available, enabling temporal and regional analysis of employment discourse. Quantitative analysis reveals several sociolinguistic patterns in online recruitment, including the persistence of gendered hiring language, regional variation in occupational demand, and the emotional framing of recruitment messages. These findings highlight the potential of Arabic social media as a resource for studying labor market communication and linguistic change. The JobArabi corpus, together with documentation and collection scripts, will be released to support research in Arabic NLP, computational social science, and digital labor studies.

This paper reflects on twenty years of building NLP resources and research infrastructure for Arabic, a language spoken by hundreds of millions yet historically underserved relative to languages such as English or Chinese. The first decade focused on foundational linguistic infrastructure; the second shifted toward computational social science, social media analysis, and socially oriented applications. Rather than cataloguing outputs, the paper examines what the experience of building them revealed. Three counterintuitive lessons emerge: building datasets is as much a social process as a technical one; communities formed around shared tasks often matter more than the tasks themselves; and moving from language resources to computational social science exposes challenges that traditional NLP training does not address. We discuss three failures: a depression detection corpus that never reached clinical practice, a period of spreading across too many shared tasks without sufficient depth, and a long-standing assumption that Modern Standard Arabic infrastructure would transfer cleanly to dialectal tasks. These experiences suggest that the hardest problems in developing NLP for underserved communities are not linguistic but social, institutional, and epistemic, and require competencies the field rarely teaches.

Large-scale news corpora support a wide range of research in Computational Social Science and NLP, yet access remains constrained: commercial archives impose prohibitive costs and licensing restrictions, while open alternatives like Common Crawl's CC-News require terabyte-scale storage and computationally intensive processing. We present Infini-News, a retrieval toolkit and index for the entire CC-News archive from August 2016 to the latest available snapshot. Our contributions are threefold. First, we extract, clean the text, and parse the structured metadata of over 1.35B articles. Second, we enrich the corpus with language detection using three frontier language classifiers (GlotLID, lingua, and CommonLingua), and with multi-source geographic attribution that resolves a country of origin for 83.4% of articles across 222 countries. Third, we construct Infini-gram indexes: suffix-array structures that let researchers search the full archive for arbitrary text patterns in sub-second time. Together, these resources lower the barrier to longitudinal, cross-national media research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent political text at scale, raising concerns about synthetic discourse during crises and social conflict. Existing AI-text detection often focuses on sentence-level cues such as perplexity, burstiness, or token irregularities, but these signals may weaken as generative systems improve. We instead adopt a Computational Social Science perspective and ask whether synthetic political discourse behaves like an observed online population. We construct a paired corpus of 1,789,406 posts across nine crisis events: COVID-19, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, Dobbs/Roe v. Wade, the 2020 BLM protests, U.S. midterms, the Utah shooting, and the U.S.-Iran war. For each event, we compare observed discourse from social platforms with synthetic discourse generated for the same context. We evaluate four dimensions: emotional intensity, structural regularity, lexical-ideological framing, and cross-event dependency, using mean gaps and dispersion evidence. Across events, synthetic discourse is fluent but population-level unrealistic. It is generally more negative and less dispersed in sentiment, structurally more regular, and lexically more abstract than observed discourse. Observed discourse instead shows broader emotional variation, longer-tailed structural distributions, and more context-specific, colloquial lexical markers. These differences are event-dependent: larger for fast-moving, decentralized crises and smaller for formal or institutionally mediated events. We summarize them with a simple event-level measure, the Caricature Gap. Our findings suggest that the main limitation of synthetic political discourse is not grammar or fluency, but reduced population realism. Population-level auditing complements traditional text-detection and provides a CSS framework for evaluating the social realism of generated discourse.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs. Measurement validity demands more than high average accuracy, which requires well calibrated confidence that faithfully reflects the empirical probability of each measurement being correct. This paper studies the model miscalibration in LLM-based social science measurement. We begin with a case study on FOMC and show that confidence based filtering can change downstream regression estimates when LLM confidence is miscalibrated. We then audit calibration across 14 social science constructs covering both proprietary models, including GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek-V3.2, and open source models. Across tasks and model families, reported confidence is poorly aligned with tolerance-based correctness. As a simple mitigation, we propose a soft label distillation pipeline for calibrating Bert with LLM. The method converts an LLM score and its verbalized confidence into a soft target distribution, then trains a smaller discriminative classifier on encoder models for these targets. Averaged across datasets, this approach reduces ECE by 43.2% and Brier by 34.0%. These results suggest that LLM-based social science pipelines should treat calibration as part of measurement validity, rather than as an optional post-processing concern.

LLM annotators are increasingly used in computational social science (CSS), but it is unclear whether their alignment-shaped errors preserve the empirical conclusions a researcher would report. We audit three open-source 7B instruction-tuned models (Zephyr, Mistral-Instruct, Qwen2.5-Instruct) across six TweetEval tasks under four prompt conditions (72 cells) and find that social-desirability failures do not run in a single direction. Zephyr exhibits leniency bias, systematically under-applying harmful labels (offensive language: false benign rate 0.729, false alarm rate 0.031). Mistral and Qwen exhibit overcorrection, over-applying the same labels (Mistral hate-speech FAR = 0.604). All three models exhibit neutrality bias on abortion stance, underestimating opposition prevalence by 24 to 40 percentage points and inflating the neutral label. None of the four prompting interventions we test (neutral, safety framing, depersonalized, chain-of-thought) corrects these failures across models; safety framing can worsen stance distortion. Strikingly, Zephyr's hate-speech prevalence estimate matches the gold rate exactly while its class-conditional errors are large in both directions, an accidental cancellation that misleads aggregate validation. We translate these patterns into a three-part taxonomy with diagnostic FBR/FAR signatures and a lightweight gold-sample validation protocol. The headline for trustworthy CSS: a model that looks calibrated on aggregate metrics can still flip the substantive empirical conclusion a researcher would report.

Natural Language Processing is rapidly evolving into a primary instrument for Computational Social Science, with researchers increasingly using embeddings to measure latent constructs such as novelty, creativity, and bias. However, this transition faces a fundamental validity challenge: the ''Proxy Presumption,'' or the reliance on geometric properties (e.g., cosine distance) as direct measures of social concepts. We argue that without explicit validation, unsupervised representations remain entangled mixtures of the target construct ($C$) and confounding attributes ($Z$) like topic, style, and authorship. To bridge the gap between semantic embeddings and valid social measures, we introduce the Construct Validity Protocol (CVP). Drawing on causal representation learning and psychometrics, the CVP offers a rigorous pipeline from conceptualization to quantitative verification. We further propose Counterfactual Neutralization, a novel method using LLMs to reduce confounding in embedding space. By providing a standardized Validity Suite -- including tests for discriminant, incremental, and predictive validity -- this work offers the community a toolkit to transform heuristic proxies into robust, scientifically defensible instruments.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly deployed not in isolation, but inside social environments populated by other agents and humans, such as in social media platforms, multi-agent LLM pipelines or autonomous robotics fleets. In these settings, system behavior emerges not from individual agents alone, but from the multi-agent interactions over time. Emergent dynamics of individuals in a social group have been long studied by social scientists in human contexts. \textbf{This position paper argues that agentic AI systems must be modeled with social theory as a structural prior, and formalizes a Multi-Agent Social Systems (MASS) framework for how agents interact and influence to generate system-level outcomes.} We represent MASS as a class of dynamical system of information generation, local influence and interaction structure, formulated by four structural priors anchored in social theory: strategic heterogeneity, networked-constrained dependence, co-evolution and distributional instability. We demonstrate the importance of each structural prior through formal propositions, and articulate a research agenda for how MASS should be modeled, evaluated and governed.

This position paper argues that the under-representation of social science tasks in contemporary LLM benchmarks limits advances in both LLM evaluation and social scientific inquiry. Benchmarks -- standardized tools for assessing computational systems -- are pivotal in the development of artificial intelligence (AI), including large language models (LLMs). Benchmarks do more than measure progress -- they actively structure it, shaping reputations, research agendas, and commercial outcomes. Despite this central role, the social sciences are largely absent from mainstream evaluation frameworks, even though scholars in these fields generate dozens of rigorously annotated, context-sensitive datasets each year. Integrating this work into benchmark design could significantly improve the generalization and robustness of AI models. In turn, models trained on social scientific tasks would likely yield better performance on classic and contemporary tasks in disciplines as diverse as history, sociology, political science or economics. This is all the more pressing as these disciplines are quickly turning to LLMs for assistance. To address this gap, we introduce BenCSSmark, a benchmark composed of datasets annotated by computational social scientists. By integrating social scientific perspectives into benchmarking, BenCSSmark seeks to promote more robust, transparent, and socially relevant AI systems and to foster efficient collaboration.

Recent work has used LLM agents to reproduce empirical social science results with access to both the data and code. We broaden this scope by asking: Can they reproduce results given only a paper's methods description and original data? We develop an agentic reproduction system that extracts structured methods descriptions from papers, runs reimplementations under strict information isolation -- agents never see the original code, results, or paper -- and enables deterministic, cell-level comparison of reproduced outputs to the original results. An error attribution step traces discrepancies through the system chain to identify root causes. Evaluating four agent scaffolds and four LLMs on 48 papers with human-verified reproducibility, we find that agents can largely recover published results, but performance varies substantially between models, scaffolds, and papers. Root cause analysis reveals that failures stem both from agent errors and from underspecification in the papers themselves.

Humans often hold different perspectives on the same issues. In many NLP tasks, annotation disagreement can reflect valid subjective perspectives. Modeling annotator perspectives and understanding their relationship with other human factors, such as socio-demographic attributes, have received increasing attention. Prior work typically focuses on single demographic factors or limited combinations. However, in real-world settings, annotator perspectives are shaped by complex social contexts, and finer-grained socio-demographic attributes can better explain human perspectives. In this work, we propose Socio-Contrastive Learning, a method that jointly models annotator perspectives while learning socio-demographic representations. Our method provides an effective approach for the fusion of socio-demographic features and textual representations to predict annotator perspectives, outperforming standard concatenation-based methods. The learned representations further enable analysis and visualization of how demographic factors relate to variation in annotator perspectives. Our code is available at GitHub: https://github.com/Leixin-Zhang/Socio_Contrastive_Learning

With the rising popularity of interdisciplinary work and increasing institutional incentives in this direction, there is a growing need to understand how resulting publications incorporate ideas from multiple disciplines. Existing computational approaches, such as affiliation diversity, keywords, and citation patterns, do not account for how individual citations are used to advance the citing work. Although, in line with addressing this gap, prior studies have proposed taxonomies to classify citation purpose, these frameworks are not well-suited to interdisciplinary research and do not provide quantitative measures of citation engagement quality. To address these limitations, we propose a framework for the evaluation of citation engagement in interdisciplinary Natural Language Processing (NLP) publications. Our approach introduces a citation purpose taxonomy tailored to interdisciplinary work, supported by an annotation study. We demonstrate the utility of this framework through a thorough analysis of publications at the intersection of NLP and Computational Social Science.

Social scientists are increasingly turning to unstructured datasets to unlock new empirical insights, e.g., estimating descriptive statistics of or causal effects on quantitative measures derived from text, audio, or video data. In many settings, unsupervised analysis is of primary interest, in that the researcher does not want to (or cannot) manually pre-specify all important aspects of the unstructured data to measure; they are interested in "discovery." This paper proposes a general and flexible framework for pursuing such discovery from unstructured data in a statistically principled way. The framework leverages recent methods from the literature on AI interpretability to map unstructured data points to high-dimensional, sparse, and interpretable "concept embeddings"; computes statistics from these concept embeddings for testing interpretable, concept-by-concept hypotheses; performs selective inference on these hypotheses using algorithms validated by new results in high-dimensional central limit theory, producing a selected set ("discoveries"); and both generates and evaluates human-interpretable natural language descriptions of these discoveries. The proposed framework has few researcher degrees of freedom, is robust to data snooping and other post-selection inference concerns, and facilitates fast and inexpensive sensitivity analysis and replication. Applications to recent descriptive and causal analyses of unstructured data in empirical economics are explored.

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.

As people increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) for guidance in their own lives, scholars, lawyers, and even judges have begun to consider the role of AI in legal decision-making. As "silicon sampling" -- the use of generative AI models in social science research -- is now impacting academia, "silicon jurors" could make an appearance in courtrooms. This study joins an emerging line of research on generative AI models' ability to simulate human legal judgments. In particular, we study how large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots respond to series of questions about legal reasonableness. When the law needs to judge the appropriateness of a behavior, it most often asks whether the behavior was "reasonable." Yet despite the ubiquity of reasonableness judgments, they are the site of constant vexation for lawyers, judges, and lay people. Reasonableness seems inherently vague and unpredictable, since it relies on variable context and implicit conceptual schemas. Moreover, many scholars caution that reasonableness judgments may vary along demographic lines. We compare the answers of human participants to those of twenty-six LLMs across twenty-five different legally relevant reasonableness judgments. Overall, our findings suggest that chatbot responses generally track those of human participants. Nonetheless, we find some suggestive -- and potentially concerning -- results. Compared to humans, LLMs generate more homogeneous responses and occasionally treat a variable standard as an invariant rule. And, compared to humans, LLMs tend to generate answers that are more favorable to the government and to corporations. Finally, our results indicate that LLMs' responses tend to align more closely with those of respondents who are white, male, older, and more educated. More systematic research is needed to confirm or reject these initial findings.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet claims that such simulations are human-like remain largely untested. We conducted a systematic audit (pre-registered on OSF) of LLM-based social simulations across four databases (Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and arXiv). Across 576 studies reported in 350 recent papers, we applied six methodological evaluations: agent Profile, Interaction, Memory, Minimal-Control, Unawareness, and Realism (PIMMUR). Coding every study against pre-specified rules, we revealed that PIM were met more often than MUR. Frontier LLMs correctly identified the underlying social experiment in 65.2% of cases, and 50.6% of prompts imposed constraints that pre-determined the outcome. These compliance rates are upper bounds, because incomplete methodological reporting (for example, unreleased prompts) limits the available evidence. Reproducing five representative experiments (e.g., opinion dynamics), we found that reported collective phenomena often vanish or reverse once PIMMUR principles are enforced, indicating that many "emergent" behaviors are methodological artifacts rather than genuine social dynamics. Current LLM simulations may therefore capture model-specific biases rather than universal features of human social behavior, raising concerns about their use as scientific proxies for human society.