arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

Plausible but Not Valid: A Psychometric Audit of LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computers and Society

arXiv:2608.14606 (cs)
[Submitted on 6 Jul 2026]

Title:Plausible but Not Valid: A Psychometric Audit of LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents

View a PDF of the paper titled Plausible but Not Valid: A Psychometric Audit of LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents, by Mantas Lukauskas and 1 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic survey respondents, but existing evaluations ask whether answers look plausible at the individual level. We argue the right question is psychometric: do LLMs preserve the joint distribution, latent structure, reliability, mediation pathways, and demographic effects of real human survey data? We introduce a Lithuanian organisational-psychology dataset (n=263 employees; Dunham Attitudes Toward Change, UWES-17, Koopmans IWPQ; 68 items, 12 subscales) and condition a 37-model lineup spanning OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and twelve open-weight families on real respondent profiles under a five-level persona-disclosure ladder, presentation and reasoning-effort ablations, counterfactual demographic swaps (gender, role, education), a cross-language check, and a verbatim-recall memorization probe. The resulting Psychometric Similarity Score (PSS) is anchored against five non-LLM statistical baselines and a held-out human-vs-human ceiling, with respondent-bootstrap confidence intervals and an item-permutation null for Tucker's phi. LLMs reproduce the qualitative direction of human psychometric relationships, but a Gaussian-copula baseline beats every LLM on the sample-driven PSS components; the LLM "crowd" is more similar to itself (mean inter-LLM PSS 0.73) than to humans; and memorization does not drive the leaderboard (recall-PSS rank correlation 0.00). Counterfactual swaps reveal education-driven effects (mean |d|=0.56) that dwarf gender (0.12) and role (0.18); Tucker's phi on UWES falls inside the permutation null for 8 of 37 models. Downstream, every LLM shows a strong acquiescence shift (+0.84 SD), synthetic-trained regressors lose predictive validity on held-out humans (mean R^2 -0.18 vs 0.28), and models fabricate indirect effects on 3 of 10 placebo mediation paths. LLM samples are not a drop-in replacement for human survey data.
Comments: 50 pages, 9 figures. Under review. Code and data will be released upon publication
Subjects: Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Applications (stat.AP)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.14606 [cs.CY]
  (or arXiv:2608.14606v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14606
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Mantas Lukauskas [view email]
[v1] Mon, 6 Jul 2026 17:11:16 UTC (216 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Plausible but Not Valid: A Psychometric Audit of LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents, by Mantas Lukauskas and 1 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CY
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language