Towards Simulating Social Media Users with LLMs: Evaluating the Operational Validity of Conditioned Comment Prediction

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for computational social analysis, yet faithfully representing the "thick descriptions" (Geertz, 1973) of human communities remains a critical challenge. Current evaluations often reduce social identity to static labels, sidelining how real-world groups navigate social shifts. To bridge this gap, we introduce CARE (Community-Aware Reaction Evaluation), a reaction-centered framework that benchmarks LLM-simulated discourse against the authentic, event-contingent responses of distinct communities to real-world news. Spanning 207 Reddit communities and covering 9,947 authentic reactions towards 2,166 news articles, CARE evaluates leading LLMs using a hierarchical taxonomy covering coarse attitudes and fine-grained communicative tones. Our empirical findings expose two critical failure modes in prevailing community-conditioning paradigms. First, while community context and targeted reasoning significantly enhance macro-level attitudinal and tonal profiling, these gains largely collapse at the instance level when predicting reactions to specific events. Second, the benefits of community conditioning are remarkably uneven: prompting strategies yield non-uniform shifts, where fidelity gains in some communities are offset by performance drops in others. This micro-macro divergence and community-level instability demonstrate that standard conditioning enables models to approximate static baseline profiles without capturing dynamic or equitable event reactions, establishing CARE as an essential diagnostic tool for community-aware social simulation. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/nuankw/Handle_with_CARE.

Large Language Model (LLM) social simulations are a promising research method, but they are not yet faithful enough to be adopted widely. In this work, we investigate whether the current scaling paradigm in language modeling is likely to close these gaps, or whether simulation fidelity is orthogonal to general capabilities and therefore deserving of more research attention. We use scaling laws to study the relationship between LLMs' compute scale, general capability benchmarks, and the fidelity of social simulation in three representative sub-domains: opinion modeling, behavioral simulation, and longitudinal forecasting. Surprisingly, we discover strong compute scaling in all three settings, using a suite of 85 transformer LLMs with the Qwen3 architecture pre-trained on the DCLM web text corpus under fixed-compute budgets from $10^{18}$ to $10^{20}$ FLOPs. Then we evaluate 35 larger and more capable open-weight models up to 70B parameters, allowing us to predict downstream accuracy from loss. This reveals that the majority of behavioral and opinion simulation tasks will rapidly improve with scale, particularly when they involve populations that are well-represented in English web corpora. Longitudinal forecasting and underrepresented opinions scale more slowly, especially when they are less correlated with general knowledge and reasoning benchmarks like MMLU. In behavior simulation, scaling fails to improve model calibration with human cognitive biases like risk aversion, as well as human heuristics like learning correlated rewards from related tasks. On these tasks, even fine-tuned models fail to noticeably scale up performance from 0.5B to 8B parameters. Taken together, we conclude that scale will improve social simulations in most settings, but outliers exist, and improvements will be less reliable in low-resource domains.

Platform policies are increasingly tested on artificial users, making agent fidelity important. Yet convincing fake profiles could also manipulate perceived public opinion before elections. Validation has concentrated on agreement with human behaviour and has paid little attention to whether an agent behaves in line with the profile it was given. The present study profiled eight Serbian participants through a questionnaire, a deep interview, and a written self-presentation, recorded their reactions to sixty-eight social media posts, and asked four language models to predict those reactions under five prompt conditions varying profile content and instruction style. Attitudinal content improved prediction over demographic backstories by a wide margin. Agents matched their stated profiles more closely than participants matched their own survey answers, and consistency proved unrelated to fidelity once profile information was present. Instructing models to respond intuitively and immediately rather than analytically gave the highest fidelity of any condition and cut the compression of individual differences from seven times the human level to three. The advantage held on posts about topics the questionnaire never raised, where that condition reached the highest fidelity of any setup and beat a crowd baseline by a wide margin, which suggests that agents prompted this way could serve as general-purpose simulated users rather than specialists on the topics they were profiled for. Results may bear implications for the development of language models, because intuition-based setups appear better suited to some tasks than reasoning-based ones.