LLM Agents Grounded in Self-Reports Enable General-Purpose Simulation of Individuals
Authors: Joon Sung Park, Carolyn Q. Zou, Jonne Kamphorst, Niles Egan, Aaron Shaw, Benjamin Mako Hill, Carrie Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, +3 more
Organizations: 1Computer Science Department, Stanford University; Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. · Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University; Evanston, IL 60208, USA. · 7CDSP and CEE, Sciences Po; Paris, 75007, France. · Department of Communication, University of Washington; Seattle, WA 98195, USA. · 4Google DeepMind; Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. · 5Google DeepMind; Seattle, WA 98195, USA. · Department of Sociology, Stanford University; Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Abstract
Machine learning can predict human behavior well when substantial structured data are available for well-defined outcomes. Such models are typically outcome-specific, however, requiring training data for each target outcome, limiting their applicability to new domains. We test whether large language models (LLMs) can relax these requirements by using self-report data to build attitudinal and behavioral simulations, or "generative agents," that can predict responses across outcomes without outcome-specific training data. Using data from a diverse national sample of 1,052 Americans, we built agents from (i) two-hour, semi-structured interviews elicited using the American Voices Project interview schedule, (ii) structured surveys including General Social Survey items and the Big Five personality inventory, or (iii) both sources combined. On held-out General Social Survey items, interview-only, survey-only, and combined agents achieved accuracies equal to 83%, 82%, and 86% of participants' own two-week test-retest consistency benchmark, respectively, compared with 74% for demographics-only agents. Combining interviews and surveys produced the highest accuracy, though gains over either source alone were modest, suggesting that predictive benefits from data begin to asymptote once the model has observed sufficient evidence within a domain. We find that these agents also predict personality traits, economic-game behavior, and experimental responses, while reducing accuracy disparities across racial and ideological groups relative to demographics-only agents. Together, these results show that LLM agents grounded in qualitative or quantitative self-reports can support general-purpose simulation of individuals across outcomes, without requiring task-specific training data.
Large language model (LLM) agents offer a generative approach to simulating human behavior under conditions that may have few or no direct historical analogues, a common challenge in disaster and infrastructure-disruption planning. However, this generative capacity creates a validity problem: individually plausible agent reasoning may fail to reproduce empirical population behavior. We evaluate whether empirical grounding improves the statistical realism of LLM-agent simulations during disruptions. Specifically, we develop an empirically grounded LLM-agent framework that embeds demographic profiles from the American Community Survey, baseline routines from the American Time Use Survey, and urban spatial context into agent initialization, memory, decision prompts, and activity execution. An independent household survey conducted during the July 2024 Philadelphia heatwave is reserved as an external validation benchmark. Compared with an ungrounded LLM-agent baseline, the grounded model improved reconstruction of normal daily routines, increasing mean correlation with empirical activity profiles from 0.528 to 0.912 and reducing mean squared error from 0.066 to 0.008. Under heatwave conditions, the grounded model better reproduced survey-derived activity profiles, increasing mean correlation from 0.349 to 0.836 and reducing mean squared error from 0.098 to 0.012. The grounded model captured 46.4% of observed heatwave response amplitude, compared with 20.6% for the ungrounded baseline. These findings show that empirical grounding can make LLM agents more statistically credible simulators of population behavior while revealing remaining gaps in modeling human adaptation during disruptions.
Large language models (LLM) agents may offer tools to predict human responses to surveys. A common technique for defining these agents uses only demographics, for example country, age, gender, employment status, income, education and marital status. We compare the predictive accuracy of demographic agents to that of survey agents defined with a larger set of in-domain survey responses. We test both approaches in predicting responses to the multidisciplinary, cross-national Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), focusing on five variables from three policy-relevant constructs around personal finance. In these three constructs, we observe that, compared to survey agents trained on broader data, demographics-only agents (1) exhibited a central tendency bias, skewing answers toward population means, and (2) were unrealistically accurate, failing to reproduce the incorrect answers and "don't know" responses typical of human respondents. These performance differences are further substantiated through the replication of a hierarchical regression analysis from prior retirement planning research. Agents based solely on demographic information reproduce the outcome that financial risk tolerance, future time perspective, and knowledge of retirement planning each are predictive of retirement savings. However, only the survey-anchored agents succeed in reproducing the interaction among these three factors. These findings suggest caution in using only demographics to define LLM agents for predicting survey responses.
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. In this work, we formalize these assumptions and systematically evaluate them across multiple architectures, scales, and simulation settings. We identify a fundamental limitation we term persona manifold collapse, where increasingly expressive persona specifications lead to systematic contraction of representational and behavioral diversity. Across models, increasing persona complexity consistently reduces inter-persona separation in latent space and weakens behavioral differentiation in downstream simulation tasks. These effects persist across multiple analyses as richer personas fail to preserve human subgroup disagreement, performance varies across attribute combinations of similar size, and adding descriptive detail often degrades rather than improves simulation fidelity. Surprisingly, simple Age-Gender personas consistently outperform richly specified Ideal Customer Profiles (ICPs) across industries, achieving substantially higher downstream prediction accuracy. We find that collapse is not uniform across attributes. Certain combinations remain behaviorally stable and preserve stronger alignment with human responses, forming localized regions we term alignment bridges. Together, our results provide empirical and conceptual foundations for understanding the limits of persona-conditioned simulation, highlighting the need for representation-aware persona construction rather than increasing persona expressivity alone.
Aanisha Bhattacharyya, Yaman Kumar Singla, Rajiv Ratn Shah +2