Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Do LLMs Reproduce the Age Gap in Loneliness? Evaluating Survey Simulation against European Survey Data

Yuliya Li, Achim Rettinger, Dominik BeyerPublished Oct 18, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.

Large language models (LLMs) are often used to simulate survey respondents, but matching survey averages does not establish accurate demographic differences. We test whether LLM outputs reproduce within-country age gaps in loneliness using the 2022 EU Loneliness Survey, comparing adults aged 18-34 and 65 or older in France, Italy, Poland, and Sweden. We evaluate simulation with and without age information and direct distribution estimation against a probability-based sample, with a non-probability sensitivity reference. Both human samples show higher mean loneliness among younger adults. Under age-specified simulation with standard response-option order, Mistral Small 4 and GPT-5.6 Terra reverse this ordering under all three prompt framings in three and two countries, respectively, mainly by overestimating older-adult means. DeepSeek V4 Flash preserves the ordering everywhere but underestimates both group means, with errors largely cancelling in France and Italy. Against the probability-based reference, direct estimation has lower absolute age-gap error than simulation for Mistral and Terra in every country. For DeepSeek, simulation has lower gap error but direct estimation has lower group-mean error; these comparisons depend on low-validity older-adult simulation cells. Evaluating LLM outputs as proxies for age groups within countries therefore requires checking both group means and their contrast against human survey data.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Large language models (LLMs) are often used to simulate survey respondents, but matching survey averages does not establish accurate demographic differences.

Implementation

No direct paper-linked artifacts found; showing strongest related artifacts

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 25, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No direct paper-linked artifacts were found. Showing strongest curated related artifacts for faster exploration.

Datasets

No trustworthy datasets matches right now.

Search datasets on Hugging Face

Spaces

No trustworthy spaces matches right now.

Search spaces on Hugging Face

Research context

Tasks

Scientific computing

Methods

Transformer

Domains

Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.