# Evaluating LLMs as Human Surrogates in Controlled Experiments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15329 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15329/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Self-rewarding alignment and self-training, one of 13 directions in Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs.
- Builds on 14 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

- Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs / [Self-rewarding alignment and self-training](https://mlsanity.com/synth/self-rewarding-alignment-and-self-training/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06899/) (2022)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10264/) (2022)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Empowered Agent-based Modeling and Simulation: A Survey and Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11970/) (2023)
- [LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18403/) (2024)
- [War and Peace (WarAgent): Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Simulation of World Wars](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17227/) (2023)
- [Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01908/) (2024)
- [Beyond correlation: The Impact of Human Uncertainty in Measuring the Effectiveness of Automatic Evaluation and LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03775/) (2024)
- [This human study did not involve human subjects: Validating LLM simulations as behavioral evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15785/) (2026)
- [Counterfactual reasoning: Testing language models' understanding of hypothetical scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16572/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human responses in behavioral research, yet it remains unclear when LLM-generated data support the same experimental inferences as human data. We evaluate this by directly comparing off-the-shelf LLM-generated responses with human responses from a canonical survey experiment on accuracy perception. Each human observation is converted into a structured prompt, and models generate a single 0--10 outcome variable without task-specific training; identical statistical analyses are applied to human and synthetic responses. We find that LLMs reproduce several directional effects observed in humans, but effect magnitudes and moderation patterns vary across models. Off-the-shelf LLMs therefore capture aggregate belief-updating patterns under controlled conditions but do not consistently match human-scale effects, clarifying when LLM-generated data can function as behavioral surrogates.