Framework-Based Qualitative Analysis of Free Responses of Large Language Models: Algorithmic Fidelity

TL;DR

This study evaluates whether large language models can be used as silicon participants in qualitative research, finding current models lack sufficient fidelity to reliably mirror human beliefs and attitudes.

Contribution

It introduces the concept of algorithmic fidelity for assessing LLMs' suitability in qualitative research and demonstrates its application in comparing LLM-generated and human interview data.

Findings

Key themes from LLM and human interviews were similar.

Structural and tonal differences were significant.

Current models like GPT-3.5 lack sufficient fidelity for generalizable research.

Abstract

Today, using Large-scale generative Language Models (LLMs) it is possible to simulate free responses to interview questions like 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 methods aiming to produce insights that could generalize to real human populations. The key concept in our analysis is algorithmic fidelity, a term introduced by Argyle et al. (2023) capturing the degree to which LLM-generated outputs mirror human sub-populations' beliefs and attitudes. By definition, high algorithmic fidelity suggests 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 the hyper-accuracy distortion described by Aher et al. (2023). We conclude that the LLM we tested (GPT-3.5) does not have sufficient algorithmic fidelity to expect research on it to generalize to human populations. However, the rapid pace of LLM research makes it plausible this could change in the future. Thus we stress the need to establish epistemic norms now around how to assess validity of LLM-based qualitative research, especially concerning the need to ensure representation of heterogeneous lived experiences.