aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that untuned open-weight LLMs can effectively simulate human statistical structures in behavioral data, achieving correlations of 0.70–0.73 without fine-tuning. However, performance does not strictly improve with newer model releases, indicating that specific verification is required rather than relying on a single benchmark. These findings provide critical insights for the feasibility of using open models to generate synthetic survey populations and digital twins.
Can Open-Weight Large Language Models (LLMs) Simulate Human Survey Populations? A Cross-Instrument Calibration Study
arXiv:2609.32638v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate synthetic survey respondents and digital twins of real people, but whether their output preserves real human statistical structure, rather than surface plausibility, remains unresolved, and most existing evidence comes from proprietary models rather than open-weight ones. We evaluate three open-weight LLM families on a cross-instrument calibration task: conditioning personas on real respondents' verbatim answers to one psychometric instrument and measuring them on a second, construct-distance-controlled instrument, checked against a 2,058-person human panel. Across a 139-pair grid, the simulated cross-instrument correlation tracks the real human correlation at r = 0.70 - 0.73 in every model, driven mainly by correct sign rather than precise magnitude and concentrated in pairs of moderate construct distance. A correlation of this magnitude, obtained from untuned open-weight models conditioned only on individual-level survey data, is a substantively encouraging result for LLM-based behavioral simulation and digital-twin applications: specific model families and releases already reproduce a meaningful share of real human cross-instrument structure without any fine-tuning. This capability does not, however, improve monotonically across model releases: on a matched panel, the newest of three tested Llama releases performs worst on two of three headline metrics, so realizing its promise in practice requires release-specific, distance-aware verification rather than a one-time benchmark.
Title:Can Open-Weight Large Language Models (LLMs) Simulate Human Survey Populations? A Cross-Instrument Calibration Study
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate synthetic survey respondents and digital twins of real people, but whether their output preserves real human statistical structure, rather than surface plausibility, remains unresolved, and most existing evidence comes from proprietary models rather than open-weight ones. We evaluate three open-weight LLM families on a cross-instrument calibration task: conditioning personas on real respondents' verbatim answers to one psychometric instrument and measuring them on a second, construct-distance-controlled instrument, checked against a 2,058-person human panel. Across a 139-pair grid, the simulated cross-instrument correlation tracks the real human correlation at r = 0.70 - 0.73 in every model, driven mainly by correct sign rather than precise magnitude and concentrated in pairs of moderate construct distance. A correlation of this magnitude, obtained from untuned open-weight models conditioned only on individual-level survey data, is a substantively encouraging result for LLM-based behavioral simulation and digital-twin applications: specific model families and releases already reproduce a meaningful share of real human cross-instrument structure without any fine-tuning. This capability does not, however, improve monotonically across model releases: on a matched panel, the newest of three tested Llama releases performs worst on two of three headline metrics, so realizing its promise in practice requires release-specific, distance-aware verification rather than a one-time benchmark.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.32638 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.32638v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32638 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026
How might continual learning affect safety and alignment?
LessWrong · Jun 13, 2026
Do AI models assist with human rights violations?
LessWrong · Sep 29, 2026
Models Can't Remember Their Training. Neither Can You.
LessWrong · Jul 19, 2026