arXiv Computation and Language

Artificial Societies Benchmark: A Validation Framework for Synthetic Research

The article introduces the Artificial Societies Benchmark, a validation framework designed to evaluate synthetic populations used in research. It comprises eleven tests covering internal, construct, and external validity, drawing on twenty human data sources and comparing nine language models. The benchmark links specific research uses to the evidence required and assesses how results vary with different respondent information, revealing that strong performance in one domain does not guarantee fidelity in others.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24

Consequential Behaviour and Representational Fairness in the Validation of Synthetic Research

Researchers use synthetic survey respondents generated by large language models as substitutes for human samples, but current validation methods often compare them to human surveys in ways that may not reflect real-world consequential behaviour. The authors propose a new validation framework that requires explicit statements of how well synthetic data correspond to human behaviour, specifies which diagnostics are addressed, and demands subgroup-level validity claims to avoid misrepresentation. The framework operationalises distributional, procedural, and recognition justice dimensions and introduces within-persona counterfactual experiments, illustrated with a case study on electric vehicle charging tariffs and concluded with a reporting checklist for researchers.

By Florian Kutzner, Celina Kacperski, Laura de Moli\`ere, Edoardo Chidichimo, Min Jun Jung, Felix Patrick Sedgwick Wallis, James Kunling He
arXiv AI
Sep 15

Synthetic Data in Marketing Research: How to Evaluate and When to Trust

The paper discusses the use of synthetic data in marketing research, arguing that the key question is not whether synthetic respondents work, but when they do. It categorizes synthetic data into three types—ungrounded LLM responses, segment-level personas, and individual-level digital twins—and maps each to the decisions they can support. The authors also propose a taxonomy of accuracy measures, highlight the forgotten question problem, and introduce an ex‑ante answerability diagnostic based on R² to improve twin-human correlation.

By Oded Netzer, Rajan Sambandam
arXiv AI
Aug 5

Emulate or Estimate? The Divergent Strengths of Base and Post-Trained Language Models for Opinion Simulation

arXiv:2608. 03044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used to simulate human opinions, but prior work reports conflicting results: some studies find promising alignment with human survey data, while others find persona collapse and weak demographic sensitivity.

By Seth Grief-Albert, Jessica Bo, Difan Jiao, Ashton Anderson
arXiv AI
4d ago

Population Fidelity: Evaluating Population Representativeness in LLMs

The paper introduces Population Fidelity, an evaluation framework for assessing how well large language models (LLMs) represent human population attitudes. It focuses on three dimensions: group-level accuracy, between-group variation, and the structure of that variation. Using the framework, the authors replicate a prior study on machine bias and test cultural fine-tuning, finding that while fine-tuning improves overall alignment, it does not enhance representation of within-population differences.

By Neemias B. da Silva, Martin Lukk, Ali Sutani, Abhishek Moturu, Harris Yang, Daniel Silver, Matt Ratto, Thiago H. Silva
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 23

Do Synthetic Personas Predict Real Audience Response? A Sim-to-Real Study Where a No-Persona Baseline Beats Persona-Based Copy Simulation

The study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) used as synthetic personas can predict real audience responses to marketing copy. Using thousands of headline A/B tests from the Upworthy Research Archive, the authors compare a ten-persona panel grounded in real audience demographics to a no-persona zero‑shot baseline that asks the model for a typical reader’s click likelihood. Results show that the no‑persona baseline outperforms the persona‑based approach, with higher predictive validity and top‑1 accuracy, indicating that forcing the model to role‑play specific personas introduces bias and noise.

By Alexandre Cristov\~ao Maiorano