IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0300024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framework-based qualitative analysis of free responses of Large Language Models: Algorithmic fidelity

Author

Listed:
  • Aliya Amirova
  • Theodora Fteropoulli
  • Nafiso Ahmed
  • Martin R Cowie
  • Joel Z Leibo

Abstract

Today, with the advent of Large-scale generative Language Models (LLMs) it is now possible to simulate free responses to interview questions such as those traditionally analyzed using qualitative research methods. Qualitative methodology encompasses a broad family of techniques involving manual analysis of open-ended interviews or conversations conducted freely in natural language. Here we consider whether artificial “silicon participants” generated by LLMs may be productively studied using qualitative analysis methods in such a way as to generate insights that could generalize to real human populations. The key concept in our analysis is algorithmic fidelity, a validity concept capturing the degree to which LLM-generated outputs mirror human sub-populations’ beliefs and attitudes. By definition, high algorithmic fidelity suggests that latent beliefs elicited from LLMs may generalize to real humans, whereas low algorithmic fidelity renders such research invalid. Here we used an LLM to generate interviews with “silicon participants” matching specific demographic characteristics one-for-one with a set of human participants. Using framework-based qualitative analysis, we showed the key themes obtained from both human and silicon participants were strikingly similar. However, when we analyzed the structure and tone of the interviews we found even more striking differences. We also found evidence of a hyper-accuracy distortion. We conclude that the LLM we tested (GPT-3.5) does not have sufficient algorithmic fidelity to expect in silico research on it to generalize to real human populations. However, rapid advances in artificial intelligence raise the possibility that algorithmic fidelity may improve in the future. Thus we stress the need to establish epistemic norms now around how to assess the validity of LLM-based qualitative research, especially concerning the need to ensure the representation of heterogeneous lived experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Aliya Amirova & Theodora Fteropoulli & Nafiso Ahmed & Martin R Cowie & Joel Z Leibo, 2024. "Framework-based qualitative analysis of free responses of Large Language Models: Algorithmic fidelity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-33, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300024
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300024
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300024&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0300024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.