Beyond Averages: Evaluating LLMs on Human Survey Replication at the Distributional Level

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09013v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2026 04:22:15 GMT
• Title: Beyond Averages: Evaluating LLMs on Human Survey Replication at the Distributional Level
• Abstract summary: We evaluate survey replication using a non-public 2010 consumer choice experiment on Korean instant noodle purchases.<n>We compare human and LLM responses at mean-level, pattern, and distributional alignment, and against reference baselines from the human data alone.
• Score: 8.995779634140495
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human survey responses, but prior work has mainly evaluated replication using mean-level or aggregate agreement, offering limited insight into whether LLMs reproduce the variability of human behavior. We evaluate LLM-based survey replication at the distributional level using a non-public 2010 consumer choice experiment on Korean instant noodle purchases, a setting unlikely to overlap with model training data. We evaluate three response variables of differing statistical type: binary purchase incidence, categorical brand choice, and count purchase quantity. For each, we compare human and LLM responses at mean-level, pattern, and distributional alignment, and against reference baselines from the human data alone. LLMs reproduce condition-level patterns reasonably well but fail to capture distributional structure: for purchase quantity, no model beats a condition-insensitive baseline that simply matches the pooled human distribution. Because models that match human means well can still produce distributions further from humans than this baseline, mean-based evaluation alone can be actively misleading. Replication also varies with input configuration, with structured personas and multimodal inputs improving alignment while explicit reasoning prompting degrades it monotonically.

Related papers

• Rethinking the Evaluation and Optimization of LLM-Based Social Simulation [56.18577997572273]
  We use the subjectivity coefficient to analyze how accuracy-based evaluation and hard-label training fail as subjectivity grows.<n>We construct SUBJSIM, a benchmark of 19,300 contexts covering 193 annotators and 100 subjective questions.<n>Results on SUBJSIM demonstrate the advantages of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T06:26:03Z)
• Partition, Prompt, Aggregate: Statistical Self-Consistency in Language Models [45.42736932931535]
  Law of total probability asserts that prior-weighted conditional distributions aggregate into population-level marginals over any valid partition of the population.<n>We use binary trees as an evaluation scaffold to partition a population into increasingly fine-grained subpopulations.<n>We prompt LLMs with verbalized subpopulation descriptions in context, aggregate the resulting estimates back into population-level estimates, and compare them across partitions of varying granularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-16T17:59:31Z)
• Deliberate Evolution: Agentic Reasoning for Sample-Efficient Symbolic Regression with LLMs [52.89778838903305]
  Deliberate Evolution (DE) is an agentic framework that decouples symbolic generation from search control.<n>Experiments on LLM-SRBench show that DE consistently outperforms representative LLM-based SR baselines across diverse scientific domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T02:22:16Z)
• Reaching Beyond the Mode: RL for Distributional Reasoning in Language Models [78.68818219506313]
  This paper describes a multi-answer reinforcement learning approach for training LMs to perform distributional reasoning over multiple answers during inference.<n>Across question-answering, medical diagnostic, and coding benchmarks, we observe improved diversity, coverage, and set-level calibration scores compared to single answer trained baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T22:20:25Z)
• Evaluating LLMs as Human Surrogates in Controlled Experiments [4.233590639227564]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human responses in behavioral research.<n>It remains unclear when LLM-generated data support the same experimental inferences as human data.<n>We evaluate this by comparing off-the-shelf LLM-generated responses with human responses from a canonical survey experiment on accuracy perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T16:03:27Z)
• Evidence-based Distributional Alignment for Large Language Models [58.65469623911573]
  We propose Evi-DA, an evidence-based alignment technique that improves the fidelity and robustness of LLM-based distribution estimation.<n>Given a target country, Evi-DA retrieves related World Values Survey items and their answer distributions, predicts a coarse Welzel value signature for each option, and infers the country-conditioned answer distribution in a structured format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T03:34:06Z)
• 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)
• Overstating Attitudes, Ignoring Networks: LLM Biases in Simulating Misinformation Susceptibility [7.616305266104683]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human judgment in computational social science.<n>We test whether LLM-simulated survey respondents can reproduce human patterns of misinformation belief and sharing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:48:05Z)
• Can Finetuing LLMs on Small Human Samples Increase Heterogeneity, Alignment, and Belief-Action Coherence? [9.310571879281186]
  Large language models (LLMs) can serve as substitutes for human participants in survey and experimental research.<n>LLMs often fail to align with real human behavior, exhibiting limited diversity, systematic misalignment for minority subgroups, insufficient within-group variance, and discrepancies between stated beliefs and actions.<n>This study examines whether fine-tuning on a small subset of human survey data, such as that obtainable from a pilot study, can mitigate these issues and yield realistic simulated outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T09:50:42Z)
• Mixture-of-Personas Language Models for Population Simulation [20.644911871150136]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can augment human-generated data in social science research and machine learning model training.<n>MoP is a contextual mixture model, where each component is an LM agent characterized by a persona and an exemplar representing subpopulation behaviors.<n>MoP is flexible, requires no model finetuning, and is transferable across base models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T12:43:05Z)
• LLM-Mirror: A Generated-Persona Approach for Survey Pre-Testing [0.0]
  We investigate whether providing respondents' prior information can replicate both statistical distributions and individual decision-making patterns.<n>We also introduce the concept of the LLM-Mirror, user personas generated by supplying respondent-specific information to the LLM.<n>Our findings show that: (1) PLS-SEM analysis shows LLM-generated responses align with human responses, (2) LLMs are capable of reproducing individual human responses, and (3) LLM-Mirror responses closely follow human responses at the individual level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-04T09:39:56Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Distributional Reinforcement Learning via Moment Matching [54.16108052278444]
  We formulate a method that learns a finite set of statistics from each return distribution via neural networks. Our method can be interpreted as implicitly matching all orders of moments between a return distribution and its Bellman target. Experiments on the suite of Atari games show that our method outperforms the standard distributional RL baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-24T05:18:17Z)

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.