# Should you use LLMs to simulate opinions? Quality checks for early-stage deliberation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08954 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08954/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 11 Apr 2025.

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Doubly-Robust LLM-as-a-Judge: Externally Valid Estimation with Imperfect Personas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22957/) (2025)
- [The Illusion of Intervention: Your LLM-Simulated Experiment is an Observational Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20767/) (2026)
- [Aplaud: Adaptive Personalized Low-Rank Decomposition for User-Specific LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04738/) (2026)
- [Who Does What? Archetypes of Roles Assigned to LLMs During Human-AI Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11924/) (2026)
- [PALMs: Using Multi Construct-Grounded Rationales for Modeling Population Preferences in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.01458/) (2026)
- [LLM-as-a-Demographic: Whom Sociodemographic Prompting Helps, and Whom It Hurts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00222/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The emergent capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have prompted interest in using them as surrogates for human subjects in opinion surveys. However, prior evaluations of LLM-based opinion simulation have relied heavily on costly, domain-specific survey data, and mixed empirical results leave their reliability in question. To enable cost-effective, early-stage evaluation, we introduce a quality control assessment designed to test the viability of LLM-simulated opinions on Likert-scale tasks without requiring large-scale human data for validation. This assessment comprises two key tests: logical consistency and alignment with stakeholder expectations, offering a low-cost, domain-adaptable validation tool. We apply our quality control assessment to an opinion simulation task relevant to AI-assisted content moderation and fact-checking workflows -- a socially impactful use case -- and evaluate seven LLMs using a baseline prompt engineering method (backstory prompting), as well as fine-tuning and in-context learning variants. None of the models or methods pass the full assessment, revealing several failure modes. We conclude with a discussion of the risk management implications and release textttTopicMisinfo, a benchmark dataset with paired human and LLM annotations simulated by various models and approaches, to support future research.