Improving Cross-Cultural Survey Simulation with Calibrated Value Personas

Using large language models (LLMs) to simulate diverse human populations has the potential to transform many aspects of computational social science, yet many evaluations score the average response rather than the spread of opinion within real groups. Here, we develop a diagnostic framework that measures point accuracy alongside dispersion retention, the ratio of predicted to human standard deviation ($\dr$), on 10{,}000 respondent--question pairs from the World Values Survey (WVS) spanning twelve countries and six continents. We evaluate eleven zero-shot language models and five variants fine-tuned on WVS data with SFT, DPO, and GRPO. We identify a failure mode we term \textit{consensus collapse}, where alignment training compresses outputs toward one stereotype per group. Along the post-training trajectory from the Llama3.1 70B base to the Tulu3 checkpoints, the first stage, supervised instruction tuning, removes half of the spread with minimal accuracy gain ($\dr$ 1.22 to 0.59; accuracy $+0.9$ points), the later stages do not restore it, and a gap opens between WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries that survey fine-tuning then deepens while pursuing higher point accuracy. The most accurate model (Tulu3 70B-DPO fine-tuned on WVS, 57.9%) keeps half the human spread overall ($\dr = 0.50$) and 11% of it for Nigeria, against 0.70--0.87 for WEIRD countries. Raising the sampling temperature to 1.0 leaves the Wasserstein-1 distance ($\wone$) to human distributions unchanged for both fine-tuned DPO models, and GRPO on Qwen3.5 9B does not restore the spread under either an accuracy reward or a distribution-shaped reward. Mixing the aligned model with an unaligned prior raises $\dr$ from 0.51 to 0.62 on a held-out split but leaves Nigeria at 0.36. Point accuracy alone therefore misjudges these simulators, and current post-training trades diversity for consensus.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We make the cross-domain benchmark and the evaluation framework available on request, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

Digital personas powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as substitutes for human survey respondents, yet it remains unclear when they can reliably approximate human survey findings. We answer this question using the LISS panel, constructing personas from respondents' background variables and pre-2023 survey histories, then testing them against the same respondents' held-out post-cutoff answers. Across four persona architectures, three LLMs, and two prediction tasks, we assess performance at the question, respondent, distributional, equity, and clustering levels. Digital personas improve alignment with human response distributions, especially in domains tied to stable attributes and values, but remain limited for individual prediction and fail to recover multivariate respondent structure. Retrieval-augmented architectures provide the clearest gains, but performance depends more on human response structure than on model choice: personas perform best for low-variability questions and common respondent patterns, and worst for subjective, heterogeneous, or rare responses. Our results provide practical guidance on when digital personas could be appropriate for survey research and when human validation remains necessary.