# Multimodal Large Language Models as Synthetic Participants in Video-Based Studies: An Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07541 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07541/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal emotion understanding, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 7 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 May 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Multimodal emotion understanding](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/multimodal-emotion-understanding/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16502/) (2023)
- [Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.12837/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Qwen3-Omni Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17765/) (2025)
- [Finetuning LLMs for Human Behavior Prediction in Social Science Experiments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.05830/) (2025)
- [Algorithmic Fidelity of Large Language Models in Generating Synthetic German Public Opinions: A Case Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13169/) (2024)
- [A Computational Model of Message Sensation Value in Short Video Multimodal Features that Predicts Sensory and Behavioral Engagement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19995/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance on objective tasks such as video understanding and reasoning. However, it remains unclear whether they can approximate subjective human responses, which depend not only on content comprehension but also on individuals' social contexts. To address this gap, we evaluate MLLMs as synthetic participants in an emerging task: assessing perceived sensory engagement with short videos. Grounded in the Perceived Message Sensation Value (PMSV) framework, we compare ratings from recruited human participants and profile-conditioned MLLM simulations (n=673) using a 17-item scale measuring emotional arousal, dramatic impact, and novelty. We find that even leading MLLMs (Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen 3 Omni) show limited agreement with human participants. The models exhibit distinct downward mean-shift and central-tendency biases in their rating distributions. They both introduce and flatten subgroup differences, while showing inconsistent sensitivity to participant profiles. Prompting strategies affect these metrics differently, modestly improving some aspects while worsening others. These results highlight both the challenges and opportunities of developing MLLMs as synthetic participants in video-based research. Data and code: https://github.com/MINDLab25/mllm-human-simulation-eval