Survey researchers face two key challenges: the rising costs of probability samples and missing data (e.g., non-response or attrition), which can undermine inference and increase the use of convenience samples. Recent work explores using large language models (LLMs) to simulate respondents via persona-based prompts, often without labeled data. We study a more practical setting where partial survey responses exist: we fine-tune LLMs on available data to impute self-reported vote choice under both random and systematic nonresponse, using the German Longitudinal Election Study. We compare zero-shot prompting and supervised fine-tuning against tabular classifiers (e.g., CatBoost) and test how different convenience samples (e.g., students) used for fine-tuning affect generalization. Our results show that when data are missing completely at random, fine-tuned LLMs match tabular classifiers but outperform zero-shot approaches. When only biased convenience samples are available, fine-tuning small (3B to 8B) open-source LLMs can recover both individual-level predictions and population-level distributions more accurately than zero-shot and often better than tabular methods. This suggests fine-tuned LLMs offer a promising strategy for researchers working with non-probability samples or systematic missing-ness, and may enable new survey designs requiring only easily accessible subpopulations.

This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models, specifically focusing on vote choice and public opinion. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao Dataset, and China Family Panel Studies to simulate voting behaviors and public opinions. This methodology enables us to examine three types of representation bias: disparities based on the the country's language, demographic groups, and political regime types. The findings reveal that simulation performance is generally better for vote choice than for public opinions, more accurate in English-speaking countries, more effective in bipartisan systems than in multi-partisan systems, and stronger in democratic settings than in authoritarian regimes. These results contribute to enhancing our understanding and developing strategies to mitigate biases in AI applications within the field of computational social science.

The recent development of large language models (LLMs) has spurred discussions about whether LLM-generated "synthetic samples" could complement or replace traditional surveys, considering their training data potentially reflects attitudes and behaviors prevalent in the population. A number of mostly US-based studies have prompted LLMs to mimic survey respondents, with some of them finding that the responses closely match the survey data. However, several contextual factors related to the relationship between the respective target population and LLM training data might affect the generalizability of such findings. In this study, we investigate the extent to which LLMs can estimate public opinion in Germany, using the example of vote choice. We generate a synthetic sample of personas matching the individual characteristics of the 2017 German Longitudinal Election Study respondents. We ask the LLM GPT-3.5 to predict each respondent's vote choice and compare these predictions to the survey-based estimates on the aggregate and subgroup levels. We find that GPT-3.5 does not predict citizens' vote choice accurately, exhibiting a bias towards the Green and Left parties. While the LLM captures the tendencies of "typical" voter subgroups, such as partisans, it misses the multifaceted factors swaying individual voter choices. By examining the LLM-based prediction of voting behavior in a new context, our study contributes to the growing body of research about the conditions under which LLMs can be leveraged for studying public opinion. The findings point to disparities in opinion representation in LLMs and underscore the limitations in applying them for public opinion estimation.