Silicon Samples Match the Answers but Not the Respondents

cs.CL cs.CY Yusuke Kumagae, Masahiro Kaneko · Oct 22, 2026
Local to this browser
What it does
Silicon sampling generates survey respondents by having a large language model (LLM) answer a survey as a person with given demographic attributes, and the resulting synthetic populations are increasingly used in place of human ones....
Why it matters
On two US social surveys, all six LLMs we evaluate leave human respondents uncovered, and under our main settings, they fall behind a baseline that samples each answer independently from the human marginals. Across the prompting and...
Review status
The review hit a snag and will retry automatically. The abstract is still available below.
Community signal
0
0 up · 0 down
Sign in to vote with arrows
AI Review Review failed

Review failed. It will be retried automatically.

Abstract

Silicon sampling generates survey respondents by having a large language model (LLM) answer a survey as a person with given demographic attributes, and the resulting synthetic populations are increasingly used in place of human ones. Existing evaluations focus on individual-answer accuracy, per-question answer distributions, and correlations across questions. None of these compares the respondents themselves, so a generator whose respondents have combinations of answers found in no human respondent can still score well if it reproduces every answer distribution. We propose the respondent coverage gap (RCG), which represents each respondent as a point defined by their complete answer profile and measures how far each human respondent is from the nearest generated one, relative to the distance between human samples. On two US social surveys, all six LLMs we evaluate leave human respondents uncovered, and under our main settings, they fall behind a baseline that samples each answer independently from the human marginals. Across the prompting and inference settings we test, every LLM has a higher RCG than a Gaussian copula fitted to the human data.

Challenge the Review

Pick a starting point or write your own. Challenges run in the background, so you can keep reading while the AI investigates.

No challenges yet. Disagree with the review? Ask the AI to revisit a specific claim.