Abstract
Language-model agents are increasingly used as synthetic people in surveys and social simulations, yet their apparent realism is often judged from population averages or distributional similarity. We tested what such evidence actually establishes by comparing Claude, Codex and Kimi under four prespecified prompt designs with matched farmer decisions from China and four African countries. Some configurations reproduced observed means and adoption rates. However, their person-level predictions were weak; their decisions clustered around typical values and policy-relevant extremes were largely missing. Most strikingly, a simple generator fitted only to the observed marginal dis- tribution, and given no information about any farmer, achieved greater distributional similarity than every language-model configuration. Prompt additions produced conditional gains rather than uni- versal improvement: results varied with model, outcome, population and validation target. We call this the average-farmer illusion: a synthetic population can look realistic while failing to repro- duce who does what or how behaviour varies. We provide a claim-matched validation framework and reusable modular prompts that turn prompt construction into an auditable experimental process. Population-level resemblance should therefore be treated as the start of validation, not as evidence of individual simulation.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15038
