Synthetic Worldview Reconstruction (SWR): A Methodological Framework for LLM-Assisted Group-Level Belief System Analysis

Abstract (English) This work presents Synthetic Worldview Reconstruction (SWR), a method for reconstructing the collective belief systems of sociologically defined groups using large language models. SWR formulates worldview analysis as an inverse problem: given the aggregated public statements and documented actions of a group, reconstruct the latent belief system that most coherently generates these outputs. The method constructs a fictive synthetic person -- a Weberian ideal type -- whose worldview represents the group's collective beliefs in distilled form. The core contribution is the synthesis pipeline (Steps 1--4), which condenses heterogeneous group-level evidence into a coherent collective portrait. The dimensional rating procedure (Step 5) is presented as one operationalization example rather than as a necessary part of SWR. A belief system encompasses three domains from near to far: self-image, view of humanity, and worldview. SWR was developed and empirically validated in a large-scale application study (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736737) and is presented here as a generalized, transferable framework with a step-by-step application guide. Zusammenfassung (Deutsch) Diese Arbeit stellt die Synthetische Weltbild-Rekonstruktion (SWR) vor, eine Methode zur Rekonstruktion kollektiver Überzeugungssysteme soziologisch definierter Gruppen mittels großer Sprachmodelle. SWR formuliert Weltbildanalyse als inverses Problem: Gegeben sind die aggregierten öffentlichen Äußerungen und dokumentierten Handlungen einer Gruppe, gesucht ist das latente Überzeugungssystem, das diese Outputs am kohärentesten erzeugt. Die Methode konstruiert eine fiktive Syntheseperson, einen Weberschen Idealtypus, deren Weltbild die kollektiven Überzeugungen der Gruppe in destillierter Form repräsentiert. Der Kernbeitrag ist die Synthese-Pipeline (Schritte 1--4), die heterogene Evidenz auf Gruppenebene zu einem kohärenten kollektiven Porträt verdichtet. Das dimensionale Rating (Schritt 5) wird als ein Operationalisierungsbeispiel dargestellt, nicht als notwendiger Bestandteil von SWR. Ein Überzeugungssystem umfasst drei Domänen von nah bis fern: Selbstbild, Menschenbild und Weltbild. SWR wurde in einer groß angelegten Anwendungsstudie (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736737) entwickelt und empirisch validiert und wird hier als verallgemeinertes, übertragbares Rahmenwerk mit Schritt-für-Schritt-Anwendungsleitfaden vorgestellt. CHANGELOG Changes in 6.1 (Source and metadata maintenance) Source-check maintenance: Bibliographic metadata were checked against Crossref/DOI, arXiv, PMLR, and the Zenodo API. Corrections include Ornstein et al. 2025, Hornby 2025, Santurkar et al. 2023, Tai et al. 2024, Wang et al. 2025, and DOI/URL completions for the remaining checked entries. Method framing clarified: The public description now explicitly separates the SWR synthesis pipeline (Steps 1--4) from the dimensional rating procedure (Step 5), which is one operationalization example rather than a mandatory component. Build refresh: English, German, and combined bilingual PDFs were rebuilt after the source check. LaTeX logs contain no overfull boxes, undefined citations or references, rerun warnings, or LaTeX errors. Changes in 6.0 (Complete Rewrite) Complete rewrite: Paper B was rewritten from the ground up to resolve inconsistencies that had developed between the method paper and the companion application study (Paper A v7.0), and to address methodological divergences that had accumulated across earlier revision cycles. Streamlined from 32 to 21 pages (EN) / 22 pages (DE): Removed overengineered variable architecture and unexecuted operationalizations. Retained only what was actually implemented and validated. New Application Guide (Section 4): Step-by-step instructions including transfer sketch (climate scientists example), cost estimates, and common pitfalls. Tiered Acceptance Criteria: Tier 1 (instrument calibration -- required) vs. Tier 2 (model independence -- desirable for replication). Coherence bias expanded: RLHF mechanism, autoregressive tendency, premature closure, metacognitive insufficiency -- with control mechanisms and honest framing as instrument property. Circularity risk section: Same-model synthesis and validation discussed with instance separation as key mitigation. Reliability vs. validity distinction: IMIIRR explicitly framed as reliability, not validity. External expert validation remains an outstanding desideratum. Belief system terminology clarified: Three domains (self-image, view of humanity, worldview), anchored in Construal Level Theory (Trope and Liberman, 2010). Structural validation (PCA + HDBSCAN): Added to the quality assurance table. Additional references: Bourdieu (doxa), Gadamer (hermeneutics), Berger and Luckmann (social construction), Kommers et al. (computational hermeneutics), Hornby (Gadamer after ChatGPT), Wang et al. (LLM thematic analysis), and Barros et al. (LLM qualitative mapping). Changes in 5.0 (Consistency Patch) Aligned with Paper A v7.0. IMIIRR introduced. Instance separation established. Cross-modal prediction corrected from 88% to 72%. Narrative corrected. Changes in 4.0 Paradigm shift to group-level analysis. Self-contained methodology. Weber as primary anchor.