An Analysis of Large Language Models for Simulating User Responses in Surveys

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06874v1
• Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2025 15:03:09 GMT
• Title: An Analysis of Large Language Models for Simulating User Responses in Surveys
• Authors: Ziyun Yu, Yiru Zhou, Chen Zhao, Hongyi Wen,
• Abstract summary: Using Large Language Models to simulate user opinions has received growing attention.<n>LLMs are known to exhibit biases toward dominant viewpoints, raising concerns about their ability to represent users from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds.
• Score: 8.614942349812429
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Using Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate user opinions has received growing attention. Yet LLMs, especially trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), are known to exhibit biases toward dominant viewpoints, raising concerns about their ability to represent users from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds. In this work, we examine the extent to which LLMs can simulate human responses to cross-domain survey questions through direct prompting and chain-of-thought prompting. We further propose a claim diversification method CLAIMSIM, which elicits viewpoints from LLM parametric knowledge as contextual input. Experiments on the survey question answering task indicate that, while CLAIMSIM produces more diverse responses, both approaches struggle to accurately simulate users. Further analysis reveals two key limitations: (1) LLMs tend to maintain fixed viewpoints across varying demographic features, and generate single-perspective claims; and (2) when presented with conflicting claims, LLMs struggle to reason over nuanced differences among demographic features, limiting their ability to adapt responses to specific user profiles.

Related papers

• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Deep Binding of Language Model Virtual Personas: a Study on Approximating Political Partisan Misperceptions [13.929713456538932]
  We propose a novel methodology for constructing virtual personas with synthetic user "backstories" generated as extended, multi-turn interview transcripts.<n>We show that virtual personas conditioned on our backstories closely replicate human response distributions and produce effect sizes that closely match those observed in the original studies of in-group/out-group biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T00:10:34Z)
• Synthesizing Public Opinions with LLMs: Role Creation, Impacts, and the Future to eDemorcacy [5.92971970173011]
  This paper investigates the use of Large Language Models to synthesize public opinion data.<n>It addresses challenges in traditional survey methods like declining response rates and non-response bias.<n>We introduce a novel technique: role creation based on knowledge injection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T21:21:52Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• 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)
• Factuality of Large Language Models: A Survey [29.557596701431827]
  We critically analyze existing work with the aim to identify the major challenges and their associated causes. We analyze the obstacles to automated factuality evaluation for open-ended text generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-04T09:36:31Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback [127.75419038610455]
  Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like, fluent responses for many downstream tasks. This paper proposes a LLM-Augmenter system, which augments a black-box LLM with a set of plug-and-play modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T18:48:43Z)

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.