Synthetic Personalities: How Well Can LLMs Mimic Individual Respondents Using Socio-Economic Microdata?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-based digital twins promise to scale and accelerate market research, but most published twins are either coarse persona bots conditioned on a few demographic questions or detailed individual-level twins built on purpose-collected surveys and interview transcripts. Neither setup speaks to the operationally most relevant case for marketing practice: building detailed individual twins from the pre-existing heterogeneous panel data that firms already accumulate through CRM systems, loyalty programs, and repeat surveys. We construct detailed individual-level twins from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and evaluate them across a 3 × 5 × 2 × 2 construction-method grid that covers three open-weights LLMs, five cumulative information depths ranked by normalized Shannon entropy, two embedding methods, and two reasoning modes, scoring over 2.1 million twin responses on 500 participants and 183 held-out questions. Twin quality rises with information depth but with diminishing returns past the 75 percent entropy quartile, which acts as a cost-efficient Pareto point relative to the best-performing 100 percent cells. Switching the embedding from a narrative persona summary to a raw dialog history of past responses raises hold-out accuracy in every model-by-reasoning cell at the 100 percent depth, while an explicit thinking mode raises rank-order correlation without moving accuracy. Best-cell accuracy reaches 78.8 percent and Fisher-z correlation reaches r = 0.590 on the SOEP held-out evaluation set. The findings suggest that twin-based market research is no longer gated by data design, but by item volume, model selection, and a small set of construction-level decisions that this paper now maps.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2026.
Builds on
14 of 39 references.
References · 14
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 737
- 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 506
- 2024LLM Agents Grounded in Self-Reports Enable General-Purpose Simulation of Individualscited by 235
- 2023Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMscited by 191
- 2024The Political Preferences of LLMscited by 83
- 2025LLM Generated Persona is a Promise with a Catchcited by 77
- 2023Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Modelscited by 70
- 2024"My Answer is C": First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Modelscited by 66
- 2025Language Model Fine-Tuning on Scaled Survey Data for Predicting Distributions of Public Opinionscited by 64
- 2025Finetuning LLMs for Human Behavior Prediction in Social Science Experimentscited by 35
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Synthetic Data in Marketing Research: How to Evaluate and When to Trust
- 2025Pay What LLM Wants: Can LLM Simulate Economics Experiment with 522 Real-human Persona?
- 2025Can Finetuing LLMs on Small Human Samples Increase Heterogeneity, Alignment, and Belief-Action Coherence?
- 2025The Sign Estimator: LLM Alignment in the Face of Choice Heterogeneity
- 2026Your Reviews Replicate You: LLM-Based Agents as Customer Digital Twins for Conjoint Analysis
- 2025Improving the Distributional Alignment of LLMs using Supervision
- 2026Distribution-First Population Simulation: Collapse, Calibration, and Recall in Non-WEIRD LLM Persona Modeling
- 2025Assessing the Human-Likeness of LLM-Driven Digital Twins in Simulating Health Care System Trust