We investigate the use of large language models (LLMs) to simulate human responses to survey questions, and perform uncertainty quantification to gain reliable insights. Our approach converts imperfect, LLM-simulated responses into confidence sets for population parameters of human responses, addressing the distribution shift between the simulated and real populations. A key innovation lies in determining the optimal number of simulated responses: too many produce overly narrow confidence sets with poor coverage, while too few yield excessively loose estimates. To resolve this, our method adaptively selects the simulation sample size, ensuring valid average-case coverage guarantees. It is broadly applicable to any LLM, irrespective of its fidelity, and any procedure for constructing confidence sets. Additionally, the selected sample size quantifies the degree of misalignment between the LLM and the target human population. We illustrate our method on real datasets and LLMs.

We investigate model assessment and selection in a changing environment, by synthesizing datasets from both the current time period and historical epochs. To tackle unknown and potentially arbitrary temporal distribution shift, we develop an adaptive rolling window approach to estimate the generalization error of a given model. This strategy also facilitates the comparison between any two candidate models by estimating the difference of their generalization errors. We further integrate pairwise comparisons into a single-elimination tournament, achieving near-optimal model selection from a collection of candidates. Theoretical analyses and empirical experiments underscore the adaptivity of our proposed methods to the non-stationarity in data.