From Demographics to Survey Anchors: Evaluating LLM Agents for Modeling Retirement Attitudes

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.

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.

Synthetic-population tools increasingly run every individual as an independent large language model (LLM) agent. Using real survey microdata, we show that this paradigm has a basic failure mode, and we set a distribution-first corrective against it, all measured with a deterministic, construct-validated verifier on non-WEIRD (Turkey-first) data. First, N independent LLM agents grounded on 2,414 real World Values Survey respondents fail to reproduce the population's response distribution: they pile onto a modal default (four scenarios x five seeds: concentration 0.36->0.69, entropy 1.46->0.77, 85% collapse, TVD=0.44), and the collapse is a predictable function of scenario structure (r=0.55 with a single-answer structure). Second, Verbalized Sampling (VS) fixes the field's chronic under-dispersion without training in three model families (fidelity +7 to +10; significant on Qwen, p=0.002, d=6.2), yet the same move universally overshoots into over-dispersion (SD-ratio 0.4-0.56 -> 1.26-1.37), a structural property of VS. Third, survey fidelity transfers only weakly to agentic behavior: in a single-model, single-domain booking task, a persona is dominated by a cheapest-default (~80%) that income modulates but does not override (comfort choice 0%->7%->32% across income bands). Fourth, a placebo-controlled memorization attack and an election backtest show VS keeps aggregate strength while subgroup and individual claims are contaminated by recall and underdetermination. We close with the corrective: model the distribution once (VS) and assign it to grounded characters at O(1) cost, with a budget-aware router whose honest AUC is 0.805, not the tautological 1.0 of a code-derived oracle. The central contribution needs no realism claim: it measures the internal inconsistency of the independent-agent route and the conditions under which the distribution-first route calibrates.