arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.13995

Synthetic Data in Marketing Research: How to Evaluate and When to Trust

Oded Netzer·Rajan Sambandam
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Debate over synthetic data in marketing research has polarized between claims that large language models (LLMs) make human respondents obsolete and calls to avoid them entirely. We argue that both positions obscure the more useful question: not whether synthetic respondents work, but when. Building on Brand, Israeli, and Ngwe (2026), we make three contributions. First, we distinguish three types of synthetic data (ungrounded LLM responses, segment-level personas, and individual-level digital twins) and map each to the decisions it can support. Second, we develop a taxonomy of four families of accuracy measures and suggest that the wide range of reported twin accuracy, from near-perfect to near-chance, largely reflects differences in what is being measured rather than in method quality. Aggregate measures often perform well even when little information is supplied to the LLM, and can mask a complete absence of respondent-level differentiation. Third, we introduce the forgotten question problem, in which a question is omitted from a fielded study, as a setting for twin-based augmentation of existing data. We propose an ex-ante answerability diagnostic that requires no ground truth: the R^2 of a random forest predicting twin outputs from the data used to construct the twins. Across 108 attitude questions from a nationally representative survey (N = 3,063), screening at R^2 above 0.7 raises the mean twin-human individual-level correlation by 15% and reduces the share of poorly answered questions from 25.9% to 4.3%. Embedding similarity and experienced-researcher judgment provide correlated but weaker screens.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Oded Netzer, Rajan Sambandam. 2026-09-19. Synthetic Data in Marketing Research: How to Evaluate and When to Trust. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13995

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Memory-Free Continual Learning with Null Space Adaptation for Zero-Shot Vision-Language Models

Pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs), such as CLIP, have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization, enabling deployment in a wide range of real-world tasks without additional task-specific training. However, in real deployment scenarios with evolving environments or emerging classes, these models inevitably face distributional shifts and novel tasks. In such contexts, static zero-shot capabilities are insufficient, and there is a growing need for continual learning methods that allow models to adapt over time while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. We introduce NuSA-CL (Null Space Adaptation for Continual Learning), a lightweight memory-free continual learning framework designed to address this challenge. NuSA-CL employs low-rank adaptation and constrains task-specific weight updates to lie within an approximate null space of the model's current parameters. This strategy minimizes interference with previously acquired knowledge, effectively preserving the zero-shot capabilities of the original model. Unlike methods relying on replay buffers or costly distillation, NuSA-CL imposes minimal computational and memory overhead, making it practical for deployment in resource-constrained, real-world continual learning environments. Experiments show that our framework not only effectively preserves zero-shot transfer capabilities but also achieves highly competitive performance on continual learning benchmarks. These results position NuSA-CL as a practical and scalable solution for continually evolving zero-shot VLMs in real-world applications.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

VeRA: Renewing Reasoning Benchmarks with Executable Specifications

Reasoning benchmarks need renewal along two axes: freshness and headroom. VeRA makes both executable and auditable by turning each item into a task family: a natural-language template, an input generator, and a deterministic answer program. VeRA-E draws fresh instances within a family; VeRA-H modifies the family toward harder tasks; and VeRA-H Pro selects one judge-ranked candidate from up to five validated proposals per seed. Execution checks, seed anchoring, answer discrimination, and independent human solving validate specifications and items. Accepted programs generate further labeled instances through local computation. Across 16 models, AIME-2024 accuracy decreases from 84.46% on seeds to 70.25% on VeRA-E variants, exposing a gap between fixed-item success and fresh-instance robustness. On AIME-2024-II, the human-audited VeRA-H Pro release lowers accuracy from 84.91% to 58.57%. Across the three hardening sources, H Pro has lower mean accuracy than H. On AMO-Bench, both releases average higher accuracy than the seeds under the evaluated budget. Initial auditing accepts 75.4% of hardened candidates; targeted repair raises usable yield to 95.1%. Executable families thus support repeatable benchmark renewal, with validation improving task quality and selection shaping the delivered challenge.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

When can we trust untrusted monitoring? A safety case sketch across collusion strategies

AIs are increasingly being deployed with greater autonomy and capabilities, which increases the risk that a misaligned AI may be able to cause catastrophic harm. Untrusted monitoring -- using one untrusted model to oversee another -- is one approach to reducing risk. Justifying the safety of an untrusted monitoring deployment is challenging because developers cannot safely deploy a misaligned model to test their protocol directly. In this paper, we develop upon existing methods for rigorously demonstrating safety based on pre-deployment testing. We relax assumptions that previous AI control research made about the collusion strategies a misaligned AI might use to subvert untrusted monitoring. We develop a taxonomy covering passive self-recognition, causal collusion (hiding pre-shared signals), acausal collusion (hiding signals via Schelling points), and combined strategies. We create a safety case sketch to clearly present our argument, explicitly state our assumptions, and highlight unsolved challenges. We identify conditions under which passive self-recognition could be a more effective collusion strategy than those studied previously. Our work builds towards more robust evaluations of untrusted monitoring.

cs.AI↗