PrivacySIM: Evaluating LLM Simulation of User Privacy Behavior
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior, but their ability to simulate individual privacy decisions is not well understood. In this paper, we address the problem of evaluating whether a core set of user persona attributes can drive LLMs to simulate individual-level privacy behavior. We introduce PrivacySIM, an evaluation suite that benchmarks LLM simulation of user privacy behavior against the ground-truth responses of 1,000 users. These users are drawn from five published user studies on privacy spanning LLM healthcare consultations, conversational agents, and chatbots. Drawing on these user studies, we hypothesize three persona facets as plausible predictors of privacy decision-making: demographics, previous experiences, and stated privacy attitudes. We condition nine frontier LLMs on subsets of these three facets and measure how often each model's response to a data-sharing scenario matches the user's actual response. Our findings show that (1) privacy persona conditioning consistently improves simulation quality over no-persona conditioning, but even the strongest model (40.4% accuracy) remains far from faithfully simulating individual privacy decisions. (2) A user's stated privacy attitudes alone may not be the best predictor because they often diverge from the user's actual privacy behavior. (3) Users with high AI/chatbot experience but low stated privacy attitudes are the most challenging to simulate. PrivacySIM is a first step toward understanding and improving the capabilities of LLMs to simulate user privacy decisions. We release PrivacySIM to enable further evaluation of LLM privacy simulation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
20 of 44 references.
References · 20
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 737
- 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 506
- 2023Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theorycited by 218
- 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 161
- 2023Aligning Language Models to User Opinionscited by 98
- 2023Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Modelscited by 70
- 2023"It's a Fair Game", or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agentscited by 60
- 2025SimBench: Benchmarking the Ability of Large Language Models to Simulate Human Behaviorscited by 48
- 2025Towards Automating Data Access Permissions in AI Agentscited by 20
8 more
- 2026The Need for a Socially-Grounded Persona Framework for User Simulationcited by 14
- 2018Discovering Smart Home Internet of Things Privacy Norms Using Contextual Integritycited by 10
- 2017The Feasibility of Dynamically Granted Permissions: Aligning Mobile Privacy with User Preferencescited by 9
- 2025Improving Language Model Personas via Rationalization with Psychological Scaffoldscited by 9
- 2025Understanding Privacy Norms Around LLM-Based Chatbots: A Contextual Integrity Perspectivecited by 7
- 2025Personalizing Agent Privacy Decisions via Logical Entailmentcited by 4
- 2026How Well Can LLM Agents Simulate End-User Security and Privacy Attitudes and Behaviors?cited by 3
- 2026Text-Based Personas for Simulating User Privacy Decisionscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.