Researchers in industry and academia use synthetic survey respondents powered by large language models as substitutes for human samples. These synthetic populations require validation against real-world data, so researchers often address them using ad hoc comparisons with human surveys. Inspired by the intention-behaviour gap in behavioural science, we argue that these validations test the wrong thing for most applied cases where decision makers commission synthetic research to anticipate consequential behaviour. To address this problem, we propose a validation framework with two requirements. First, every validity claim must state its level of correspondence with human data: does the sample predict what the represented people do, which of four diagnostics (location, dispersion, response process and structure) does the validation address, and does the validation compare against experimental effects? Second, researchers must report validity claims for subgroups, since these groups are often the most affected by consequential decisions and aggregate accuracy hides their misrepresentation. Our validation framework operationalises three justice dimensions (distributional, procedural, and recognition) as measurable quantities and defines within-persona counterfactual experiments as a validation requirement. We then apply the framework to electric vehicle charging tariffs, before closing with a reporting checklist that researchers can use to make convincing validity claims.
There is a proliferation of work arguing for the use of synthetic data in scientific research. For example, social scientists are arguing for the use of LLM-generated "silicon samples" in pilot studies; AI evaluations increasingly rely on "LLM-as-a-judge" outputs; and proteomics research is accelerated by generative models that produce synthetic protein structures. These developments raise an intriguing possibility: synthetic data may help researchers ask more questions, run more studies, and accelerate discovery. But they also raise a fundamental concern: synthetic data can be biased, noisy, and misspecified. In this work, we propose statistical principles for using synthetic data in scientific research with provable validity guarantees. The key insight is a new technical condition that we call task exchangeability. Informally, this is a requirement that the researcher can identify historical tasks, for which real data is available, such that their current task of interest is exchangeable with the historical tasks in an appropriate mathematical sense. We develop methods for valid inference under task exchangeability, together with extensions that provide guarantees even beyond exchangeability. We demonstrate the framework on public opinion surveys with silicon samples and AI evaluation with autoraters.
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.
Decision support systems (DSS) increasingly run retention what-if analysis on synthetic customer populations, because privacy constraints preclude unrestricted use of real data. Such a system is trustworthy only if the synthetic data lead managers to the same decisions as the real data would; yet prevailing criteria certify distributional similarity, not decision alignment, so a synthetic population can match every marginal distribution while still steering a marketing team toward the wrong campaigns. We close this decision-alignment gap with three contributions: strategy simulation fidelity (SSF), a criterion measuring how often the synthetic population yields the same go/no-go campaign decision as the real population; PolicySynth, a DSS framework whose generator is conditioned on the production churn scorer to align decision-relevant structure; and a three-axis reporting standard of decision alignment, membership-inference resistance, and novel-record rate as the minimum deployment quality gate. On a telecommunications churn corpus and a banking acquisition corpus, PolicySynth attains a mean SSF of 0.923 and 0.960, with seed-to-seed variance roughly ten times tighter than CTGAN on telecommunications and 2.5 times on banking. This stability is the deployable property: go/no-go recommendations shift by at most 1.2 percentage points between monthly retraining cycles, against 11.5 for CTGAN, a reversed recommendation on one campaign in nine. A bootstrap baseline matches PolicySynth on SSF yet copies real records verbatim and fails membership inference, evidence that no single axis suffices. PolicySynth reliably supports directional go/no-go screening; its ROI estimates diverge from real outcomes by 70 to 78% and require the volume correction we document.