Can Large Language Models Simulate Human Responses? A Case Study of Stated Preference Experiments in the Context of Heating-related Choices

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10652v3
• Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:01:56 GMT
• Title: Can Large Language Models Simulate Human Responses? A Case Study of Stated Preference Experiments in the Context of Heating-related Choices
• Authors: Han Wang, Jacek Pawlak, Aruna Sivakumar,
• Abstract summary: Stated preference (SP) surveys are a key method to research how individuals make trade-offs in hypothetical, also futuristic, scenarios.<n>They tend to be costly, time-consuming, and can be affected by respondent fatigue and ethical constraints.<n>This study investigates the use of large language models (LLMs) to simulate consumer choices in energy-related surveys.
• Score: 2.2582258282563763
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Stated preference (SP) surveys are a key method to research how individuals make trade-offs in hypothetical, also futuristic, scenarios. In energy context this includes key decarbonisation enablement contexts, such as low-carbon technologies, distributed renewable energy generation, and demand-side response [1,2]. However, they tend to be costly, time-consuming, and can be affected by respondent fatigue and ethical constraints. Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating human-like textual responses, prompting growing interest in their application to survey research. This study investigates the use of LLMs to simulate consumer choices in energy-related SP surveys and explores their integration into data analysis workflows. A series of test scenarios were designed to systematically assess the simulation performance of several LLMs (LLaMA 3.1, Mistral, GPT-3.5 and DeepSeek-R1) at both individual and aggregated levels, considering contexts factors such as prompt design, in-context learning (ICL), chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, LLM types, integration with traditional choice models, and potential biases. Cloud-based LLMs do not consistently outperform smaller local models. In this study, the reasoning model DeepSeek-R1 achieves the highest average accuracy (77%) and outperforms non-reasoning LLMs in accuracy, factor identification, and choice distribution alignment. Across models, systematic biases are observed against the gas boiler and no-retrofit options, with a preference for more energy-efficient alternatives. The findings suggest that previous SP choices are the most effective input factor, while longer prompts with additional factors and varied formats can cause LLMs to lose focus, reducing accuracy.

Related papers

• Large Language Models as Virtual Survey Respondents: Evaluating Sociodemographic Response Generation [18.225151370273093]
  This paper explores a new paradigm: simulating virtual survey respondents using Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce two novel simulation settings, namely Partial Attribute Simulation (PAS) and Full Attribute Simulation (FAS)<n>We curate a comprehensive benchmark suite, LLM-S3 (Large Language Model-based Sociodemographic Simulation Survey), that spans 11 real-world public datasets across four sociological domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T04:59:00Z)
• How Do LLM-Generated Texts Impact Term-Based Retrieval Models? [76.92519309816008]
  This paper investigates the influence of large language models (LLMs) on term-based retrieval models.<n>Our linguistic analysis reveals that LLM-generated texts exhibit smoother high-frequency and steeper low-frequency Zipf slopes.<n>Our study further explores whether term-based retrieval models demonstrate source bias, concluding that these models prioritize documents whose term distributions closely correspond to those of the queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T06:43:27Z)
• SPaRFT: Self-Paced Reinforcement Fine-Tuning for Large Language Models [51.74498855100541]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong reasoning capabilities when fine-tuned with reinforcement learning (RL)<n>We propose textbfSPaRFT, a self-paced learning framework that enables efficient learning based on the capability of the model being trained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T03:50:48Z)
• Can Prompt Difficulty be Online Predicted for Accelerating RL Finetuning of Reasoning Models? [65.18157595903124]
  This work investigates iterative approximate evaluation for arbitrary prompts.<n>It introduces Model Predictive Prompt Selection (MoPPS), a Bayesian risk-predictive framework.<n>MoPPS reliably predicts prompt difficulty and accelerates training with significantly reduced rollouts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T03:20:52Z)
• Can Large Language Models Trigger a Paradigm Shift in Travel Behavior Modeling? Experiences with Modeling Travel Satisfaction [2.2974830861901414]
  This study uses data on travel satisfaction from a household survey in shanghai to identify the existence and source of misalignment between Large Language Models and human behavior.<n>We find that the zero-shot LLM exhibits behavioral misalignment, resulting in relatively low prediction accuracy.<n>We propose an LLM-based modeling approach that can be applied to model travel behavior using samples of small sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T09:11:58Z)
• Think Only When You Need with Large Hybrid-Reasoning Models [121.55211364358662]
  Large Hybrid-Reasoning Models (LHRMs)<n>First kind of model capable of adaptively determining whether to perform thinking based on contextual information of user queries.<n>Extensive experimental results show that LHRMs can adaptively perform hybrid thinking on queries of varying difficulty and type.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T17:23:25Z)
• Attention Pruning: Automated Fairness Repair of Language Models via Surrogate Simulated Annealing [14.114970711442512]
  This paper introduces Attention Pruning, a fairness-aware simulated annealing approach to prune attention heads in large language models (LLMs) Our experiments show that Attention Pruning achieves up to $40%$ reduction in gender bias and outperforms the state-of-the-art bias mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T03:02:32Z)
• Llms, Virtual Users, and Bias: Predicting Any Survey Question Without Human Data [0.0]
  We use Large Language Models (LLMs) to create virtual populations that answer survey questions. We evaluate several LLMs-including GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, Claude 3.5-Sonnet, and versions of the Llama and Mistral models-comparing their performance to that of a traditional Random Forests algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T16:27:20Z)
• Teaching LLMs According to Their Aptitude: Adaptive Reasoning for Mathematical Problem Solving [55.895917967408586]
  Existing approaches to mathematical reasoning with large language models rely on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) for generalizability or Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) for precise computation. We propose TATA (Teaching LLMs According to Their Aptitude), an adaptive framework that enables LLMs to personalize their reasoning strategy spontaneously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T16:56:23Z)
• LLM-Lasso: A Robust Framework for Domain-Informed Feature Selection and Regularization [59.75242204923353]
  We introduce LLM-Lasso, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to guide feature selection in Lasso regression. LLMs generate penalty factors for each feature, which are converted into weights for the Lasso penalty using a simple, tunable model. Features identified as more relevant by the LLM receive lower penalties, increasing their likelihood of being retained in the final model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T02:55:22Z)
• 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.<n>As a testbed, we use country-level results from two global cultural surveys.<n>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)
• Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge [69.96778498636071]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods. In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:13:03Z)
• Large Language Models for Market Research: A Data-augmentation Approach [3.3199591445531453]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed artificial intelligence by excelling in complex natural language processing tasks.<n>Recent studies highlight a significant gap between LLM-generated and human data, with biases introduced when substituting between the two.<n>We propose a novel statistical data augmentation approach that efficiently integrates LLM-generated data with real data in conjoint analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-26T22:06:29Z)
• LLM-Mirror: A Generated-Persona Approach for Survey Pre-Testing [0.0]
  We investigate whether providing respondents' prior information can replicate both statistical distributions and individual decision-making patterns.<n>We also introduce the concept of the LLM-Mirror, user personas generated by supplying respondent-specific information to the LLM.<n>Our findings show that: (1) PLS-SEM analysis shows LLM-generated responses align with human responses, (2) LLMs are capable of reproducing individual human responses, and (3) LLM-Mirror responses closely follow human responses at the individual level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-04T09:39:56Z)
• AutoElicit: Using Large Language Models for Expert Prior Elicitation in Predictive Modelling [53.54623137152208]
  We introduce AutoElicit to extract knowledge from large language models and construct priors for predictive models.<n>We show these priors are informative and can be refined using natural language.<n>We find that AutoElicit yields priors that can substantially reduce error over uninformative priors, using fewer labels, and consistently outperform in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T10:13:39Z)
• Dynamic Uncertainty Ranking: Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning for Long-Tail Knowledge in LLMs [50.29035873837]
  Large language models (LLMs) can learn vast amounts of knowledge from diverse domains during pre-training.<n>Long-tail knowledge from specialized domains is often scarce and underrepresented, rarely appearing in the models' memorization.<n>We propose a reinforcement learning-based dynamic uncertainty ranking method for ICL that accounts for the varying impact of each retrieved sample on LLM predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T03:42:17Z)
• Scaling Laws for Predicting Downstream Performance in LLMs [75.28559015477137]
  This work focuses on the pre-training loss as a more computation-efficient metric for performance estimation.<n>We present FLP-M, a fundamental approach for performance prediction that addresses the practical need to integrate datasets from multiple sources during pre-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T04:57:48Z)
• LLM-Select: Feature Selection with Large Language Models [64.5099482021597]
  Large language models (LLMs) are capable of selecting the most predictive features, with performance rivaling the standard tools of data science.<n>Our findings suggest that LLMs may be useful not only for selecting the best features for training but also for deciding which features to collect in the first place.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T22:23:40Z)
• Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Know [97.90008709512921]
  We show that fine-tuning on a small dataset of correct and incorrect answers can create an uncertainty estimate with good generalization and small computational overhead.<n>We also investigate the mechanisms that enable reliable uncertainty estimation, finding that many models can be used as general-purpose uncertainty estimators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T16:41:31Z)
• 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)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Comprehensive Reassessment of Large-Scale Evaluation Outcomes in LLMs: A Multifaceted Statistical Approach [64.42462708687921]
  Evaluations have revealed that factors such as scaling, training types, architectures and other factors profoundly impact the performance of LLMs. Our study embarks on a thorough re-examination of these LLMs, targeting the inadequacies in current evaluation methods. This includes the application of ANOVA, Tukey HSD tests, GAMM, and clustering technique.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T14:47:35Z)
• Small Models, Big Insights: Leveraging Slim Proxy Models To Decide When and What to Retrieve for LLMs [60.40396361115776]
  This paper introduces a novel collaborative approach, namely SlimPLM, that detects missing knowledge in large language models (LLMs) with a slim proxy model. We employ a proxy model which has far fewer parameters, and take its answers as answers. Heuristic answers are then utilized to predict the knowledge required to answer the user question, as well as the known and unknown knowledge within the LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T11:11:08Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• An energy-based comparative analysis of common approaches to text classification in the Legal domain [0.856335408411906]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively adopted to address NLP problems in academia and industry. In this work, we present a detailed comparison of LLM and traditional approaches (e.g. SVM) on the LexGLUE benchmark. The results indicate that very often, the simplest algorithms achieve performance very close to that of large LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T14:16:48Z)
• To Repeat or Not To Repeat: Insights from Scaling LLM under Token-Crisis [50.31589712761807]
  Large language models (LLMs) are notoriously token-hungry during pre-training, and high-quality text data on the web is approaching its scaling limit for LLMs. We investigate the consequences of repeating pre-training data, revealing that the model is susceptible to overfitting. Second, we examine the key factors contributing to multi-epoch degradation, finding that significant factors include dataset size, model parameters, and training objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:02:15Z)

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.