From Caricature to Collective Artifact: How Persona Construction Drives Polarization in Generative Social Simulations

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in social science research, including decisions, interactions, and social relationships. However, in network formation tasks, existing evaluations often focus on aggregate network properties, while networks with plausible structural properties may still fail to reproduce individuals' social and political environments. Here, we generate LLM-based political networks using personas sampled from the nationally representative ANES 2020--2022 Social Media Study and use respondents' survey-reported partisan exposure as an empirical benchmark for the political environments generated for the corresponding personas. We first characterize the structural properties and political assortativity of the generated networks, and then compare ego-level partisan exposure with the survey. We find that the structure and political assortativity of the generated networks vary across experimental configurations. More importantly, when comparing generated partisan exposure with the survey, some models generate stronger separation between Democratic and Republican egos than reported in the survey, with higher same-party and lower cross-party exposure, while others mainly underestimate Republican exposure across ego groups. Moreover, networks with similar political assortativity can still generate different partisan environments around the same personas, including among networks with plausible structural properties. Finally, generated networks show group-specific errors, under- or overestimating exposure to either Democrats or Republicans for specific social groups. These findings show that evaluating LLM-based social simulations only through aggregate outcomes can hide errors in the local environments through which those outcomes emerge, highlighting the importance of validation at both aggregate and individual levels.

Simulated societies of large language model agents are used to study online polarization, and separately to study collective intelligence, but the two are rarely measured in the same system. It is therefore difficult to say whether a society's personality composition shapes both, or whether reducing polarization costs collective competence. We present TraitMix, an experimental design in which the Big Five composition of a simulated social network, both trait levels and trait heterogeneity, is a controlled experimental variable, and in which polarization and collective performance are measured in the same runs. Across 991 simulations of hundred-agent societies, spanning six contested topics and six language models, trait heterogeneity has the largest measured effects, acting in opposite directions on two faces of polarization: varied societies hold more dispersed opinions while being less segregated into camps, so homogeneous societies are not moderate but consensual echo chambers. Trait effects are not additive, as Agreeableness determines the sign of Openness, an interaction that replicates across models although the primary model's estimate is influence-driven. Contrary to the trade-off the study was designed to measure, no polarization measure predicts poorer collective performance, and cross-cutting interaction is the only one of four whose association with collective accuracy survives partialling on the aggregation identity. We report ablations removing two potential measurement circularities, an induction gate applied to every model, and the measures that failed them.

What does it mean to model a person, not merely to predict isolated responses, preferences, or behaviors, but to simulate how an individual interprets events, forms opinions, makes judgments, and acts consistently across contexts? This question matters because social science requires not only observing and predicting human outcomes, but also simulating interventions and their consequences. Although large language models (LLMs) can generate human-like answers, most existing approaches remain predictive, relying on demographic correlations rather than representations of individuals themselves. We introduce SPIRIT (Semi-structured Persona Inference and Reasoning for Individualized Trajectories), a framework designed explicitly for simulation rather than prediction. SPIRIT infers psychologically grounded, semi-structured personas from public social media posts, integrating structured attributes (e.g., personality traits and world beliefs) with unstructured narrative text reflecting values and lived experience. These personas prompt LLM-based agents to act as specific individuals when answering survey questions or responding to events. Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. adults, we show that SPIRIT-conditioned simulations recover self-reported responses more faithfully than demographic persona and reproduce human-like heterogeneity in response patterns. We further demonstrate that persona banks can function as virtual respondent panels for studying both stable attitudes and time-sensitive public opinion.