arXiv AI
MetaPersona: Task-Grounded Synthetic Populations from Empirical Social Science
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 30
LLM Agents Grounded in Self-Reports Enable General-Purpose Simulation of Individuals
arXiv:2411. 10109v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Machine learning can predict human behavior well when substantial structured data are available for well-defined outcomes.
arXiv AI
Jun 3
Generating the Modal Worker: A Cross-Model Audit of Race and Gender in LLM-Generated Personas Across 41 Occupations
arXiv:2510. 21011v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI tools are increasingly used to portray people in professional roles, understanding their racial and gender representational biases is critical.
arXiv AI
Jul 31
When Synthetic Users Fail: A Cross-Domain Benchmark of LLM-Simulated Human Survey Responses
arXiv:2607. 26348v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions.
arXiv AI
Jun 18
How Well Do Large Language Models Capture Human Personality?
arXiv:2606. 18263v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human populations via persona prompting, often under the assumptions that richer persona descriptions improve behavioral fidelity, similarly sized attribute combinations are equally simulatable, and persona definitions generalize across tasks.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22
Pretrained Persona Mixture Models and Tandem Models for Human Simulation
arXiv:2609.22607v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue here that the current dominant practice in LLM human simulation: prompting instruction-tuned assistant language models to role-play personas,...
arXiv AI
Sep 10
The Failure Happens Before the Drift: The Social Dynamics of Values in LLM Agent Societies
The study introduces a World Values Survey–grounded simulation framework to test whether large language model agents can faithfully represent diverse human value systems. In about 4,000 conversations with 1,200 personas across three models, more than half of the agents failed to express their assigned value profiles from the start, and only 2–7% drifted over time. The results show systematic deviations from the intended value distributions and reveal that simulated dialogues differ from human discussions in their balance of stylistic consistency and semantic diversity.