Distributional Validity of a Korean Synthetic Persona Panel: Evidence From the Korea Media Panel Survey

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.

Large language models are increasingly used as synthetic research participants and are often validated by whether their marginal responses resemble human data. We study a fixed panel of sixteen lightweight persona-conditioned GPT-4.1 configurations in repeated strategic games. The panel met preregistered broad-reference condition-mean criteria in three of four repeated-game cells; the sole miss was 0.011 below the lower reference bound. Variation was strongly prompt-indexed, but its share depended on uncertainty assumptions: fixed-panel symmetric-Dirichlet sensitivities produced median between-prompt shares of 63%-71% under Jeffreys alpha=0.5 and 47%-53% under alpha=1, while finite-opportunity plug-in estimates were 85%-96%. Aggregate continuation-probability contrasts were +0.083 and +0.078, with conservative simultaneous 95% intervals [-0.171, +0.330] and [-0.181, +0.330]. The treatment jointly changed the continuation process and its textual representation. A separate wording-and-position operation shifted cooperation from 0/40 to 37/40 in the bare configuration, and a label conflict also revealed representation control. The original persona-level p13 result was not prospectively family-controlled, while a post-adjudication exact gate was structurally underpowered; p13 is therefore a replication target rather than a finding. External review exposed family-error, dependence, construct, and boundary-uncertainty defects, and zero-call reanalysis changed the interpretation without rewriting the historical record. The registered marginal criteria could be passed without precisely estimating the treatment-response object. A public capsule verifies 4,916 confirmatory Phase 3-5 runs with no live model calls. The results concern one fixed model-prompt panel and do not establish human substitutability.