Simulating Field Experiments with Large Language Models
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Prevailing large language models (LLMs) are capable of human responses simulation through its unprecedented content generation and reasoning abilities. However, it is not clear whether and how to leverage LLMs to simulate field experiments. In this paper, we propose and evaluate two prompting strategies: the observer mode that allows a direct prediction on main conclusions and the participant mode that simulates distributions of responses from participants. Using this approach, we examine fifteen well cited field experimental papers published in INFORMS and MISQ, finding encouraging alignments between simulated experimental results and the actual results in certain scenarios. We further identify topics of which LLMs underperform, including gender difference and social norms related research. Additionally, the automatic and standardized workflow proposed in this paper enables the possibility of a large-scale screening of more papers with field experiments. This paper pioneers the utilization of large language models (LLMs) for simulating field experiments, presenting a significant extension to previous work which focused solely on lab environments. By introducing two novel prompting strategies, observer and participant modes, we demonstrate the ability of LLMs to both predict outcomes and replicate participant responses within complex field settings. Our findings indicate a promising alignment with actual experimental results in certain scenarios, achieving a stimulation accuracy of 66% in observer mode. This study expands the scope of potential applications for LLMs and illustrates their utility in assisting researchers prior to engaging in expensive field experiments. Moreover, it sheds light on the boundaries of LLMs when used in simulating field experiments, serving as a cautionary note for researchers considering the integration of LLMs into their experimental toolkit.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2024.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Evaluating LLMs as Human Surrogates in Controlled Experiments
- 2025SimBench: Benchmarking the Ability of Large Language Models to Simulate Human Behaviors
- 2023The Challenge of Using LLMs to Simulate Human Behavior: A Causal Inference Perspective
- 2025Can Finetuing LLMs on Small Human Samples Increase Heterogeneity, Alignment, and Belief-Action Coherence?
- 2024Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates: Scylla Ex Machina
- 2026Improving Behavioral Alignment in LLM Social Simulations via Context Formation and Navigation
- 2023Psychometric Predictive Power of Large Language Models
- 2025Exploring Large Language Model Agents for Piloting Social Experiments