Llms, Virtual Users, and Bias: Predicting Any Survey Question Without Human Data

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16498v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:27:20 GMT
• Title: Llms, Virtual Users, and Bias: Predicting Any Survey Question Without Human Data
• Authors: Enzo Sinacola, Arnault Pachot, Thierry Petit,
• Abstract summary: We use Large Language Models (LLMs) to create virtual populations that answer survey questions.<n>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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative to traditional survey methods, potentially enhancing efficiency and reducing costs. In this study, we use LLMs to create virtual populations that answer survey questions, enabling us to predict outcomes comparable to human responses. 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 using demographic data from the World Values Survey (WVS). LLMs demonstrate competitive performance overall, with the significant advantage of requiring no additional training data. However, they exhibit biases when predicting responses for certain religious and population groups, underperforming in these areas. On the other hand, Random Forests demonstrate stronger performance than LLMs when trained with sufficient data. We observe that removing censorship mechanisms from LLMs significantly improves predictive accuracy, particularly for underrepresented demographic segments where censored models struggle. These findings highlight the importance of addressing biases and reconsidering censorship approaches in LLMs to enhance their reliability and fairness in public opinion research.

Related papers

• Evaluating Local and Cloud-Based Large Language Models for Simulating Consumer Choices in Energy Stated Preference Surveys [4.672157041593765]
  This study investigates the ability of large language models to simulate consumer choices in energy-related SP surveys.<n>Results indicate that while LLMs achieve an average accuracy of up to 48%, their performance remains insufficient for practical application.<n>Findings suggest that previous SP choices are the most effective input factor, while longer prompts with varied factor formats may reduce accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T10:37:31Z)
• 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.<n>We propose directly fine-tuning LLMs to predict response distributions by leveraging unique structural characteristics of survey data.<n>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)
• 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. Long-tail knowledge from specialized domains is often scarce and underrepresented, rarely appearing in the models' memorization. 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)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• 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)
• ChatGPT Based Data Augmentation for Improved Parameter-Efficient Debiasing of LLMs [65.9625653425636]
  Large Language models (LLMs) exhibit harmful social biases. This work introduces a novel approach utilizing ChatGPT to generate synthetic training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T01:28:48Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Capture Public Opinion about Global Warming? An Empirical Assessment of Algorithmic Fidelity and Bias [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their potential in social science research by emulating human perceptions and behaviors. This study assesses the algorithmic fidelity and bias of LLMs by utilizing two nationally representative climate change surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T01:32:59Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.