Artificial Societies Benchmark: A Validation Framework for Synthetic Research

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.

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 publicly release the cross-domain benchmark and validation framework, including all code and data, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

How well can AI-derived synthetic research data replicate the responses of human participants? An emerging literature has begun to engage with this question, which carries deep implications for organizational research practice. This article presents a comparison between a human-respondent survey of 420 Silicon Valley coders and developers and synthetic survey data designed to simulate real survey takers generated by five leading Generative AI Large Language Models: ChatGPT Thinking 5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Pro plus Claude CoWork 1.123, Gemini Advanced 2.5 Pro, Incredible 1.0, and DeepSeek 3.2. Our findings reveal that while AI agents produced technically plausible results that lean more towards replicability and harmonization than assumed, none were able to capture the counterintuitive insights that made the human survey valuable. Moreover, deviations grouped together for all models, leaving the real data as the outlier. Our key finding is that while leading LLMs are increasingly being used to scale, replicate and replace human survey responses in research, these advances only show an increased capacity to parrot conventional wisdom in harmony with each other rather than revealing novel findings. If synthetic respondents are used in future research, we need more replicable validation protocols and reporting standards for when and where synthetic survey data can be used responsibly, a gap that this paper fills. Our results suggest that synthetic survey responses cannot meaningfully model real human social beliefs within organizations, particularly in contexts lacking previously documented evidence. We conclude that synthetic survey-based research should be cast not as a substitute for rigorous survey methods, but as an increasingly reliable pre- or post-fieldwork instrument for identifying societal assumptions, conventional wisdoms, and other expectations about research populations.