analiza aiqbench
This research investigates how selecting specific persona attributes influences the ability of Large Language Models to accurately predict human survey responses. The study identifies that response variation in the underlying data is a key factor explaining inconsistent results and evaluates various attribute selection methods across multiple models and international datasets. It offers practical guidance for researchers aiming to optimize persona prompting strategies without relying on simply increasing the number of attributes.
When Persona Attributes Improve Population Alignment in Large Language Models
arXiv:2609.02526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to predict the responses of human participants in survey panels. Towards that goal, persona prompting has recently emerged as a technique to inform and align large pretrained language models. Persona prompting refers to the practice of using short textual descriptions of 'personas' in prompts to steer the LLM's generations. Personas describe individuals through different attributes such as their socio-demographics, attitudes, or behaviors, with the aim of aligning LLMs to produce responses that correlate with the corresponding human responses. Yet, recent work has produced mixed and partly conflicting results of persona prompting without clear patterns of success and failure. Among the few consistent findings is that the selection of persona attributes matters, and that using more attributes does not necessarily lead to better performance. It remains unclear how different attribute selection methods perform and how to choose among them. In this paper, we propose that observed human response variation of a survey question is a potential explanation for the mixed performance observed so far. In addition, we compare the performance of persona prompting associated with different methods for selecting persona attributes. We evaluate these methods on four different (general) social surveys across two countries, six LLMs, and twenty prediction tasks per survey. Our work helps to identify when persona prompting can be expected to be useful in survey prediction tasks, and provides new insights on the effectiveness of different attribute selection methods for LLM-based survey prediction using persona prompting.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to predict the responses of human participants in survey panels. Towards that goal, persona prompting has recently emerged as a technique to inform and align large pretrained language models. Persona prompting refers to the practice of using short textual descriptions of 'personas' in prompts to steer the LLM's generations. Personas describe individuals through different attributes such as their socio-demographics, attitudes, or behaviors, with the aim of aligning LLMs to produce responses that correlate with the corresponding human responses. Yet, recent work has produced mixed and partly conflicting results of persona prompting without clear patterns of success and failure. Among the few consistent findings is that the selection of persona attributes matters, and that using more attributes does not necessarily lead to better performance. It remains unclear how different attribute selection methods perform and how to choose among them. In this paper, we propose that observed human response variation of a survey question is a potential explanation for the mixed performance observed so far. In addition, we compare the performance of persona prompting associated with different methods for selecting persona attributes. We evaluate these methods on four different (general) social surveys across two countries, six LLMs, and twenty prediction tasks per survey. Our work helps to identify when persona prompting can be expected to be useful in survey prediction tasks, and provides new insights on the effectiveness of different attribute selection methods for LLM-based survey prediction using persona prompting.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2609.02526 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.02526v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.02526 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 344 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · 2 oct. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026
Can Voice Agents Handle Bilingual Customers? Benchmarking Frontier ASR on Code-Switched Speech
Hugging Face · 9 iun. 2026
Large Language Models in K-12 Education: Alignment with State Curriculum Standards and Student Personas
arXiv · 4 iun. 2026