Emulating Public Opinion: A Proof-of-Concept of AI-Generated Synthetic Survey Responses for the Chilean Case

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09871v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 21:43:59 GMT
• Title: Emulating Public Opinion: A Proof-of-Concept of AI-Generated Synthetic Survey Responses for the Chilean Case
• Authors: Bastián González-Bustamante, Nando Verelst, Carla Cisternas,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising avenues for methodological and applied innovations in survey research.<n>We evaluate the reliability of LLM-generated synthetic survey responses against ground-truth human responses from a Chilean public opinion probabilistic survey.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising avenues for methodological and applied innovations in survey research by using synthetic respondents to emulate human answers and behaviour, potentially mitigating measurement and representation errors. However, the extent to which LLMs recover aggregate item distributions remains uncertain and downstream applications risk reproducing social stereotypes and biases inherited from training data. We evaluate the reliability of LLM-generated synthetic survey responses against ground-truth human responses from a Chilean public opinion probabilistic survey. Specifically, we benchmark 128 prompt-model-question triplets, generating 189,696 synthetic profiles, and pool performance metrics (i.e., accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score) in a meta-analysis across 128 question-subsample pairs to test for biases along key sociodemographic dimensions. The evaluation spans OpenAI's GPT family and o-series reasoning models, as well as Llama and Qwen checkpoints. Three results stand out. First, synthetic responses achieve excellent performance on trust items (F1-score and accuracy > 0.90). Second, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini and Llama 4 Maverick perform comparably on this task. Third, synthetic-human alignment is highest among respondents aged 45-59. Overall, LLM-based synthetic samples approximate responses from a probabilistic sample, though with substantial item-level heterogeneity. Capturing the full nuance of public opinion remains challenging and requires careful calibration and additional distributional tests to ensure algorithmic fidelity and reduce errors.

Related papers

• Individual Turing Test: A Case Study of LLM-based Simulation Using Longitudinal Personal Data [54.145424717168794]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable human-like capabilities, yet their ability to replicate a specific individual remains under-explored.<n>This paper presents a case study to investigate LLM-based individual simulation with a volunteer-contributed archive of private messaging history spanning over ten years.<n>We propose the "Individual Turing Test" to evaluate whether acquaintances of the volunteer can correctly identify which response in a multi-candidate pool most plausibly comes from the volunteer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T21:46:27Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Persona-Conditioned LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents [0.4277616907160855]
  We use a large dataset of U.S. microdata to assess the impact of persona-conditioned simulations.<n>We find that persona prompting does not yield a clear aggregate improvement in survey alignment and, in many cases, significantly degrades performance.<n>Our findings highlight a key adverse impact of current persona-based simulation practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T15:13:59Z)
• Mitigating Social Desirability Bias in Random Silicon Sampling [3.6780694107792495]
  We investigate whether minimal, psychologically grounded prompt wording can mitigate Social Desirability Bias (SDB) in large language models (LLMs)<n>We conducted a study using data from the American National Election Study (ANES) on three LLMs from two model families.<n>Our results demonstrate that reformulated prompts most effectively improve alignment by reducing distribution concentration on socially acceptable answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-27T23:21:32Z)
• RefineBench: Evaluating Refinement Capability of Language Models via Checklists [71.02281792867531]
  We evaluate two refinement modes: guided refinement and self-refinement.<n>In guided refinement, both proprietary LMs and large open-weight LMs can leverage targeted feedback to refine responses to near-perfect levels within five turns.<n>These findings suggest that frontier LMs require breakthroughs to self-refine their incorrect responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T07:20:52Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Large Language Models as Virtual Survey Respondents: Evaluating Sociodemographic Response Generation [18.225151370273093]
  This paper explores a new paradigm: simulating virtual survey respondents using Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce two novel simulation settings, namely Partial Attribute Simulation (PAS) and Full Attribute Simulation (FAS)<n>We curate a comprehensive benchmark suite, LLM-S3 (Large Language Model-based Sociodemographic Simulation Survey), that spans 11 real-world public datasets across four sociological domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T04:59:00Z)
• Using Imperfect Synthetic Data in Downstream Inference Tasks [50.40949503799331]
  We introduce a new estimator based on generalized method of moments.<n>We find that interactions between the moment residuals of synthetic data and those of real data can improve estimates of the target parameter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T18:32:52Z)
• 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)
• Human Preferences in Large Language Model Latent Space: A Technical Analysis on the Reliability of Synthetic Data in Voting Outcome Prediction [5.774786149181393]
  We analyze how demographic attributes and prompt variations influence latent opinion mappings in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that LLM-generated data fails to replicate the variance observed in real-world human responses.<n>In the political space, persona-to-party mappings exhibit limited differentiation, resulting in synthetic data that lacks the nuanced distribution of opinions found in survey data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T16:25:33Z)
• 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)
• Query Performance Prediction using Relevance Judgments Generated by Large Language Models [53.97064615557883]
  We propose a new Query performance prediction (QPP) framework using automatically generated relevance judgments (QPP-GenRE)<n>QPP-GenRE decomposes QPP into independent subtasks of predicting relevance of each item in a ranked list to a given query.<n>We predict an item's relevance by using open-source large language models (LLMs) to ensure scientific relevance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T09:33:05Z)
• How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts [54.07541591018305]
  We present MAD-Bench, a benchmark that contains 1000 test samples divided into 5 categories, such as non-existent objects, count of objects, and spatial relationship. We provide a comprehensive analysis of popular MLLMs, ranging from GPT-4v, Reka, Gemini-Pro, to open-sourced models, such as LLaVA-NeXT and MiniCPM-Llama3. While GPT-4o achieves 82.82% accuracy on MAD-Bench, the accuracy of any other model in our experiments ranges from 9% to 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:31:27Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)

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.