Predicting results of social science experiments using large language models
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented emergent capabilities, including content generation, translation, and simulation of human behavior. Field experiments, on the other hand, are widely employed in social studies to examine real-world human behavior through carefully designed manipulations and treatments. However, field experiments are known to be expensive and time consuming. Therefore, an interesting question is whether and how LLMs can be utilized for field experiments. In this paper, we propose and evaluate an automated LLM-based framework to predict the outcomes of a field experiment. Applying this framework to 276 experiments about a wide range of human behaviors drawn from renowned economics literature yields a prediction accuracy of 78%. Moreover, we find that the distributions of the results are either bimodal or highly skewed. By investigating this abnormality further, we identify that field experiments related to complex social issues such as ethnicity, social norms, and ethical dilemmas can pose significant challenges to the prediction performance.
Study specs
Authors used an automated framework powered by large language models to predict outcomes of 276 field experiments drawn from economics literature.
- Authors
- L Hewitt,A Ashokkumar,I Ghezae,R Willer
- Institution
- Stanford University,New York University
- Discipline
- Computational Social Science
- Sample Size
- N=276
- Study Type
- methodology
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
The prediction accuracy of large language models for outcomes of field experiments addressing various human behaviors.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.