Adaptive Budget Allocation in LLM-Augmented Surveys

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12497v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:25:34 GMT
• Title: Adaptive Budget Allocation in LLM-Augmented Surveys
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can generate survey responses at low cost, but their reliability varies substantially across questions.<n>We propose an adaptive allocation algorithm that learns which questions are hardest for the LLM while simultaneously collecting human responses.
• Score: 4.998402019776929
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate survey responses at low cost, but their reliability varies substantially across questions and is unknown before data collection. Deploying LLMs in surveys still requires costly human responses for verification and correction. How should a limited human-labeling budget be allocated across questions in real time? We propose an adaptive allocation algorithm that learns which questions are hardest for the LLM while simultaneously collecting human responses. Each human label serves a dual role: it improves the estimate for that question and reveals how well the LLM predicts human responses on it. The algorithm directs more budget to questions where the LLM is least reliable, without requiring any prior knowledge of question-level LLM accuracy. We prove that the allocation gap relative to the best possible allocation vanishes as the budget grows, and validate the approach on both synthetic data and a real survey dataset with 68 questions and over 2000 respondents. On real survey data, the standard practice of allocating human labels uniformly across questions wastes 10--12% of the budget relative to the optimal; our algorithm reduces this waste to 2--6%, and the advantage grows as questions become more heterogeneous in LLM prediction quality. The algorithm achieves the same estimation quality as traditional uniform sampling with fewer human samples, requires no pilot study, and is backed by formal performance guarantees validated on real survey data. More broadly, the framework applies whenever scarce human oversight must be allocated across tasks where LLM reliability is unknown.

Related papers

• Rectification Difficulty and Optimal Sample Allocation in LLM-Augmented Surveys [0.0]
  Large Language Models can generate synthetic survey responses at low cost, but their accuracy varies unpredictably across questions.<n>We study the design problem of allocating a fixed budget of human respondents across estimation tasks when cheap LLM predictions are available for every task.<n>Our framework combines three components. First, building on Prediction-Powered Inference, we characterize a question-specific rectification difficulty that governs how quickly the estimator's variance decreases with human sample size.<n>Second, we derive a closed-form optimal allocation rule that directs more human labels to tasks where the LLM is least reliable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-19T05:45:37Z)
• Llms, Virtual Users, and Bias: Predicting Any Survey Question Without Human Data [0.0]
  We use Large Language Models (LLMs) to create virtual populations that answer survey questions.<n>We evaluate several LLMs-including GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, Claude 3.5-Sonnet, and versions of the Llama and Mistral models-comparing their performance to that of a traditional Random Forests algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T16:27:20Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for LLM-Based Survey Simulations [9.303339416902995]
  We investigate the use of large language models (LLMs) to simulate human responses to survey questions.<n>Our approach converts imperfect LLM-simulated responses into confidence sets for population parameters.<n>A key innovation lies in determining the optimal number of simulated responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T02:07:29Z)
• Specializing Large Language Models to Simulate Survey Response Distributions for Global Populations [49.908708778200115]
  We are the first to specialize large language models (LLMs) for simulating survey response distributions.<n>As a testbed, we use country-level results from two global cultural surveys.<n>We devise a fine-tuning method based on first-token probabilities to minimize divergence between predicted and actual response distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T21:59:27Z)
• MixLLM: Dynamic Routing in Mixed Large Language Models [57.309520357563215]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit potential artificial generic intelligence recently, however, their usage is costly with high response latency.<n>We develop MixLLM, a dynamic contextual-bandit-based routing system for query-LLM assignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T02:26:15Z)
• LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help? [20.998805709422292]
  Test collections are information-retrieval tools that allow researchers to quickly and easily evaluate ranking algorithms.<n>As a cheaper alternative, recent studies have proposed using large language models (LLMs) to completely replace human assessors.<n>We propose LARA, an effective method to balance manual annotations with LLM annotations, helping build a rich and reliable test collection even under a low budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T11:17:35Z)
• Dynamic Uncertainty Ranking: Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning for Long-Tail Knowledge in LLMs [50.29035873837]
  Large language models (LLMs) can learn vast amounts of knowledge from diverse domains during pre-training.<n>Long-tail knowledge from specialized domains is often scarce and underrepresented, rarely appearing in the models' memorization.<n>We propose a reinforcement learning-based dynamic uncertainty ranking method for ICL that accounts for the varying impact of each retrieved sample on LLM predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T03:42:17Z)
• AGENT-CQ: Automatic Generation and Evaluation of Clarifying Questions for Conversational Search with LLMs [53.6200736559742]
  AGENT-CQ consists of two stages: a generation stage and an evaluation stage. CrowdLLM simulates human crowdsourcing judgments to assess generated questions and answers. Experiments on the ClariQ dataset demonstrate CrowdLLM's effectiveness in evaluating question and answer quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T17:06:27Z)
• Investigating Cost-Efficiency of LLM-Generated Training Data for Conversational Semantic Frame Analysis [18.44272589315175]
  We show how to balance the trade-off between the higher quality but more expensive human data and the lower quality yet substantially cheaper LLM-generated data. Our experiments, conducted across various budget levels, reveal that optimal cost-efficiency is achieved by combining both human and LLM-generated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T05:15:13Z)
• RetrievalQA: Assessing Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Short-form Open-Domain Question Answering [42.66223628527439]
  Adaptive retrieval-augmented generation (ARAG) aims to dynamically determine the necessity of retrieval for queries instead of retrieving indiscriminately. This work presents a benchmark, RetrievalQA, comprising 1,271 short-form questions covering new world and long-tail knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T09:59:04Z)
• How to Train Data-Efficient LLMs [56.41105687693619]
  We study data-efficient approaches for pre-training language models (LLMs) We find that Ask-LLM and Density sampling are the best methods in their respective categories. In our comparison of 19 samplers, involving hundreds of evaluation tasks and pre-training runs, we find that Ask-LLM and Density are the best methods in their respective categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T02:27:57Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.