When prompt perturbations break your A/B test: A valid statistical test for generative surveying

Organizations and researchers show increasing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in place of human participants in A/B tests, in the hope of experimenting faster and at lower cost. We study when a treatment effect estimated on LLM outcomes can recover the effect for the human population of interest. Distributional equivalence between LLM and human outcomes would make any standard estimator valid but is unrealistic. We therefore develop a statistical framework that adapts surrogate endpoint theory to LLMs, showing that calibrating LLM outcomes to human outcomes identifies the average treatment effect under surrogacy and comparability conditions that are jointly weaker than distributional equivalence. We present a falsification test for surrogacy and a bound on the worst-case bias from limited overlap between the LLM and human samples. We further show that the stochasticity inherent to LLMs can weaken surrogacy for identification while also introducing bias and variance during estimation, but that using an average over multiple LLM draws per unit as the surrogate mitigates these issues. Simulations validate the results, and an empirical application to the Upworthy Research Archive dataset shows that raw LLM outputs recover only 39% of the human treatment effect while nonparametric calibration closes the gap. A central takeaway is that A/B testing on LLM responses is correct only by assumption, whereas A/B testing on humans is correct by design, and that the required assumptions are hardest to justify precisely where LLMs promise the greatest benefit. We discuss the choice of LLM, prompting, and temperature as design variables, the compounded challenge posed by long-term outcomes, and how to size human pilot studies for validation.

A/B testing is the gold standard for evaluating product changes, but each experiment requires real user traffic, engineering effort, and weeks of measurement. We propose a simulation framework that predicts A/B test outcomes using LLM-powered agents conditioned on data-driven personas grounded in real user behavioral signals. Unlike prior work that relies on synthetic or rule-based personas, our agents are constructed from anonymized behavioral data-activity patterns, engagement signals, and inferred demographics-enabling more faithful population modeling. We frame A/B test simulation as a structured question task and systematically study (i) question design formats, (ii) the impact of persona data source and domain alignment, (iii) the trade-off between per-persona behavioral depth and population diversity, and (iv) efficient population subsampling. On a benchmark of 40 A/B tests spanning two metric types, our best configuration achieves 0.75-0.90 directional accuracy depending on the test metric, demonstrating that data-driven personas are a viable path toward fast, low-cost experiment pre-screening.

Large Language Models can generate synthetic survey responses at low cost, but their accuracy varies unpredictably across questions. We study the design problem of allocating a fixed budget of human respondents across estimation tasks when cheap LLM predictions are available for every task. Our framework combines three components. First, building on Prediction-Powered Inference, we characterize a question-specific rectification difficulty that governs how quickly the estimator's variance decreases with human sample size. Second, we derive a closed-form optimal allocation rule that directs more human labels to tasks where the LLM is least reliable. Third, since rectification difficulty depends on unobserved human responses for new surveys, we propose a meta-learning approach, trained on historical data, that predicts it for entirely new tasks without pilot data. The framework extends to general M-estimation, covering regression coefficients and multinomial logit partworths for conjoint analysis. We validate the framework on two datasets spanning different domains, question types, and LLMs, showing that our approach captures 61-79% of the theoretically attainable efficiency gains, achieving 11.4% and 10.5% MSE reductions without requiring any pilot human data for the target survey.