Abstract
Synthetic personas based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as substitutes for human survey respondents, yet systematic validation outside English-speaking contexts remains scarce. This secondary-data study evaluates how well a Korean synthetic persona panel (NVIDIA Nemotron-Personas-Korea), conditioned into Gemini 3.5 Flash (primary) and EXAONE (comparison), reproduces digital and AI service-use distributions from the KISDI Korea Media Panel Survey. Sex-and-age-stratified panels of about 8,000 personas per model answered the survey's own items - eight service-use indicators and eight innovativeness and acceptance constructs - and were compared against weighted survey estimates. The overall mean absolute error (MAE; RQ1) was 15-19 percentage points (pp), with binary item-mean correlations of 0.69-0.90. Segment error (RQ2) across five demographic axes was 15-19 pp, with between-group gaps up to 52.4/36.2 pp (Gemini/EXAONE). Errors followed model-specific signatures: an age stereotype with low anchoring (Gemini) versus an acquiescence-consistent level bias (EXAONE). Reference-year analysis was consistent with temporal misalignment driving most generative-AI overestimation, whereas short-form underestimation was framing-sensitive. Holdout calibration on 30% of the real data (RQ3) roughly halved sex-by-age cell MAE (18.9->8.6, 15.9->6.7 pp) - yet direct estimation from the same real subsample was far more accurate (3.6 pp), and the correction did not transfer across time. The calibrated panel retained an advantage only under extremely scarce real data (about 100 responses) and, for one model, for unobserved segments. Persona-narrative conditioning beat demographic-only conditioning, but neither surpassed simple real-data baselines. Synthetic panels are thus not survey substitutes; their value is diagnostic, with operational use confined to settings lacking real data.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28615
