AI-Augmented Surveys: Leveraging Large Language Models and Surveys for Opinion Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09620v3
• Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 02:10:04 GMT
• Title: AI-Augmented Surveys: Leveraging Large Language Models and Surveys for Opinion Prediction
• Authors: Junsol Kim, Byungkyu Lee,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) that produce human-like responses have begun to revolutionize research practices in the social sciences. We develop a novel methodological framework that fine-tunes LLMs with repeated cross-sectional surveys. We introduce two new applications of the AI-augmented survey: retrodiction (i.e., predict year-level missing responses) and unasked opinion prediction.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) that produce human-like responses have begun to revolutionize research practices in the social sciences. We develop a novel methodological framework that fine-tunes LLMs with repeated cross-sectional surveys to incorporate the meaning of survey questions, individual beliefs, and temporal contexts for opinion prediction. We introduce two new emerging applications of the AI-augmented survey: retrodiction (i.e., predict year-level missing responses) and unasked opinion prediction (i.e., predict entirely missing responses). Among 3,110 binarized opinions from 68,846 Americans in the General Social Survey from 1972 to 2021, our models based on Alpaca-7b excel in retrodiction (AUC = 0.86 for personal opinion prediction, $\rho$ = 0.98 for public opinion prediction). These remarkable prediction capabilities allow us to fill in missing trends with high confidence and pinpoint when public attitudes changed, such as the rising support for same-sex marriage. On the other hand, our fine-tuned Alpaca-7b models show modest success in unasked opinion prediction (AUC = 0.73, $\rho$ = 0.67). We discuss practical constraints and ethical concerns regarding individual autonomy and privacy when using LLMs for opinion prediction. Our study demonstrates that LLMs and surveys can mutually enhance each other's capabilities: LLMs can broaden survey potential, while surveys can improve the alignment of LLMs.

Related papers

• Language Model Fine-Tuning on Scaled Survey Data for Predicting Distributions of Public Opinions [4.020002996724124]
  Large language models (LLMs) predict survey responses in advance during the early stages of survey design. We propose directly fine-tuning LLMs to predict response distributions by leveraging unique structural characteristics of survey data. We show that fine-tuning on SubPOP greatly improves the match between LLM predictions and human responses across various subpopulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T00:31:33Z)
• Specializing Large Language Models to Simulate Survey Response Distributions for Global Populations [49.908708778200115]
  We are the first to specialize large language models (LLMs) for simulating survey response distributions. As a testbed, we use country-level results from two global cultural surveys. We devise a fine-tuning method based on first-token probabilities to minimize divergence between predicted and actual response distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T21:59:27Z)
• Eliciting Uncertainty in Chain-of-Thought to Mitigate Bias against Forecasting Harmful User Behaviors [29.892041865029803]
  Conversation forecasting tasks a model with predicting the outcome of an unfolding conversation. It can be applied in social media moderation to predict harmful user behaviors before they occur. This paper explores what extent model uncertainty can be used as a tool to mitigate potential biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:07:53Z)
• United in Diversity? Contextual Biases in LLM-Based Predictions of the 2024 European Parliament Elections [45.84205238554709]
  Large language models (LLMs) are perceived by some as having the potential to revolutionize social science research. In this study, we examine to what extent LLM-based predictions of public opinion exhibit context-dependent biases. We predict voting behavior in the 2024 European Parliament elections using a state-of-the-art LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T16:01:06Z)
• Vox Populi, Vox AI? Using Language Models to Estimate German Public Opinion [45.84205238554709]
  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. We find that GPT-3.5 does not predict citizens' vote choice accurately, exhibiting a bias towards the Green and Left parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T14:52:18Z)
• Are Large Language Models Chameleons? An Attempt to Simulate Social Surveys [1.5727456947901746]
  We conducted millions of simulations in which large language models (LLMs) were asked to answer subjective questions. A comparison of different LLM responses with the European Social Survey (ESS) data suggests that the effect of prompts on bias and variability is fundamental.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T17:54:22Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Are Large Language Models (LLMs) Good Social Predictors? [36.68104332805214]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot work as expected on social prediction when given general input features without shortcuts. We introduce a novel social prediction task, Soc-PRF Prediction, which utilizes general features as input and simulates real-world social study settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T00:59:22Z)
• Are You Sure? Challenging LLMs Leads to Performance Drops in The FlipFlop Experiment [82.60594940370919]
  We propose the FlipFlop experiment to study the multi-turn behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) We show that models flip their answers on average 46% of the time and that all models see a deterioration of accuracy between their first and final prediction, with an average drop of 17% (the FlipFlop effect) We conduct finetuning experiments on an open-source LLM and find that finetuning on synthetically created data can mitigate - reducing performance deterioration by 60% - but not resolve sycophantic behavior entirely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T23:40:22Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
  We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses. We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups. Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.