Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07305v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 10:22:22 GMT
• Title: Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure
• Abstract summary: Population-marginal agreement is evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.<n>On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons.
• Score: 51.736723807086385
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Demographic synthetic survey panels are often validated by matching aggregate answers to published surveys. We test what that certificate establishes across six multiselect batteries from four survey organisations in three countries. The headline analysis is restricted to three instruments whose synthetic cohort and human target share the stated population frame; three other batteries remain sensitivity analyses. The response contract dominates measured fidelity. In the aligned instruments, committed sets leave 66 of 128 model-battery option slots empty in panels of up to 500 respondents, versus 0 of 128 under per-option probability elicitation. Across eight uncapped model-instrument comparisons, probabilities reduce option-marginal MAE by 4.53 to 7.30 points. The capped instrument reverses on two models until the vectors are projected onto its stated maximum. These are measurement effects: human targets are realised check-all responses, whereas the vectors are latent inclusion propensities. Published marginal agreement also fails to discriminate respondent simulation from direct population estimation. On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons. Constraint-aware probability vectors average 5.34 and beat the query on four of nine, so the baseline challenges the validation criterion rather than proving direct estimation uniformly best. On three unpublished demographic cells, neither approach beats reciting the national distribution. Population-marginal agreement is therefore evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.

Related papers

• When AI Writes, Who Gets Cited? Evidence of Citation Monoculture Across Language Models [45.91367912142692]
  We show that different models may still select the same narrow subset, producing citation monoculture without any single citation being wrong.<n>Eleven models from three vendors choose at most ten papers from uniformly random panels of thirty, with real titles and abstracts but fabricated authors, reassigned years, and hidden venues and citation counts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T14:27:46Z)
• Passing Coarse Marginal Checks Can Be Cheap: Persona Mixtures and Imprecise Treatment-Response Estimates in an LLM Persona Panel [0.0]
  We study a fixed panel of sixteen lightweight persona-conditioned GPT-4.1 configurations in repeated strategic games.<n>Variation was strongly prompt-indexed, but its share depended on uncertainty assumptions.<n>Results concern one fixed model-prompt panel and do not establish human substitutability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T04:10:11Z)
• Silicon Sampling via Cross-Survey Transfer [0.0]
  Silicon sampling-using large language models (LLMs) to simulate human survey respondents has emerged as a promising approach for augmenting traditional survey research.<n>We propose a more rigorous evaluation framework in which an LLM is given a respondent's answers to one set of questions and must predict their answers to entirely different questions from the same survey.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-03T08:22:18Z)
• Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark [63.143852586221534]
  We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines.<n>We prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality.<n>The top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T17:06:49Z)
• Let the Results Speak: A Replication-First Paradigm for LLM Behavioral Benchmarking [22.825786049667602]
  We propose a replication-first paradigm to anchor validity to a single human-rater consensus.<n>We certify the instrument via four properties -- reliability across K runs, cross-instrument replication across architecturally distinct judges, historical-footprint calibration via judges from earlier training cohorts, and pre-registered prediction.<n>We test it on emotional accompaniment by letting the self-evolve data-driven across: the dimensions are not pre-stipulated and the procedure stabilizes to a 9-dimension set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:41:11Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• Visual Aesthetic Benchmark: Can Frontier Models Judge Beauty? [59.923111838399144]
  We introduce the Visual Aesthetic Benchmark (VAB), which casts aesthetic evaluation as comparative selection over candidate sets with matched subject matter.<n>VAB contains 400 tasks and 1,195 images across fine art, photography, and illustration, with labels derived from the consensus of 10 independent expert judges per task.<n>We find that the strongest system identifies both the best and the worst image correctly across three random permutations of the candidate order in only 26.5% of tasks, far below the 68.9% achieved by human experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T19:33:28Z)
• Preserving Disagreement: Architectural Heterogeneity and Coherence Validation in Multi-Agent Policy Simulation [0.0]
  Multi-agent deliberation systems using large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for policy simulation.<n>They suffer from artificial consensus: evaluator agents converge on the same option regardless of their assigned value perspectives.<n>We present the AI Council, a three-phase deliberation framework, and conduct 120 deliberations across two policy scenarios to test two interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T11:47:28Z)
• From Black Box to Glass Box: Cross-Model ASR Disagreement to Prioto Review in Ambient AI Scribe Documentation [43.148402136307716]
  Cross-model disagreement among heterogeneous ASR systems can act as a reference-free uncertainty signal.<n>We transcribed 50 publicly available medical audio clips with eight ASR systems spanning commercial APIs and open-source engines.<n>Low-agreement regions were enriched for content disagreements, with the content fraction increasing from 53.9% to 73.9% across quintiles of high-risk mass.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T13:02:13Z)
• Emulating Public Opinion: A Proof-of-Concept of AI-Generated Synthetic Survey Responses for the Chilean Case [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T21:43:59Z)
• Evaluating Perceptual Distance Models by Fitting Binomial Distributions to Two-Alternative Forced Choice Data [43.714290271351466]
  This paper introduces a more robust distance-model evaluation method using a pure probabilistic approach, applying maximum likelihood estimation to a binomial decision model.<n>Our method demonstrates superior simplicity, interpretability, flexibility, and computational efficiency, as shown through evaluations of various visual distance models on two 2AFC PF datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T15:21:04Z)

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.