LLM-based Human Simulations Have Not Yet Been Reliable

This position paper argues that LLM-based social simulations require clear boundaries to make meaningful contributions to social science. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for simulating human behavior, their tendency to produce homogeneous outputs, acting as an "average persona", fundamentally limits their ability to capture the behavioral diversity essential for complex social dynamics. We examine why heterogeneity matters for social simulations and how current LLMs fall short, analyzing the relationship between mean alignment and variance in LLM-generated behaviors. Through a systematic review of representative studies, we find that validation practices often fail to match the heterogeneity requirements of research questions: while most papers include ground truth comparisons, fewer than half explicitly assess behavioral variance, and most that do report lower variance than human populations. We propose that researchers should: (1) match validation depth to the heterogeneity demands of their research questions, (2) explicitly report variance alongside mean alignment, and (3) constrain claims to collective-level qualitative patterns when variance is insufficient. Rather than dismissing LLM-based simulation, we advocate for a boundary-aware approach that ensures these methods contribute genuine insights to social science.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet claims that such simulations are human-like remain largely untested. We conducted a systematic audit (pre-registered on OSF) of LLM-based social simulations across four databases (Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and arXiv). Across 576 studies reported in 350 recent papers, we applied six methodological evaluations: agent Profile, Interaction, Memory, Minimal-Control, Unawareness, and Realism (PIMMUR). Coding every study against pre-specified rules, we revealed that PIM were met more often than MUR. Frontier LLMs correctly identified the underlying social experiment in 65.2% of cases, and 50.6% of prompts imposed constraints that pre-determined the outcome. These compliance rates are upper bounds, because incomplete methodological reporting (for example, unreleased prompts) limits the available evidence. Reproducing five representative experiments (e.g., opinion dynamics), we found that reported collective phenomena often vanish or reverse once PIMMUR principles are enforced, indicating that many "emergent" behaviors are methodological artifacts rather than genuine social dynamics. Current LLM simulations may therefore capture model-specific biases rather than universal features of human social behavior, raising concerns about their use as scientific proxies for human society.

The scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations should be no stronger than the robustness audits that support them. Generative agents bring new expressive power to agent-based modeling, enabling simulations of collective social processes like cooperation, polarization, and norm formation. Yet they also introduce complexity through additional architectural choices, such as agent specification, memory representation, interaction protocols, and environment design. Small perturbations that appear minor to researchers can cascade into macro-level outcomes through repeated interaction, creating a "butterfly effect." Consequently, scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations may reflect implementation artifacts rather than the social mechanisms being modeled. We support this position with two case studies: a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma and a social media echo chamber simulation. Across multiple models, minor perturbations in persona format and game-instruction framing shift cooperation rates by up to 76 percentage points, while network homophily and hub assignment produce significant and consistent shifts in polarization metrics. We also find that sensitivity is unevenly distributed across both architectural choices and model families: the same perturbation that produces the 76 pp shift in one frontier model only shifts another by 1 pp. Robustness is therefore a property that should be measured per claim and per model, not assumed. To address this validation gap, we introduce TRAILS (Taxonomy for Robustness Audits In LLM Simulations), a robustness-audit taxonomy spanning three levels of simulation design: agent (micro-level), interaction (meso-level), and system (macro-level). We call for robustness to become a first-order validation requirement before LLM social simulations are used to explain mechanisms, evaluate interventions, or inform decisions.