Recent works leverage LLMs to roleplay realistic social scenarios, aiding novices in practicing their social skills. However, simulating sensitive interactions, such as in mental health, is challenging. Privacy concerns restrict data access, and collecting expert feedback, although vital, is laborious. To address this, we develop Roleplay-doh, a novel human-LLM collaboration pipeline that elicits qualitative feedback from a domain-expert, which is transformed into a set of principles, or natural language rules, that govern an LLM-prompted roleplay. We apply this pipeline to enable senior mental health supporters to create customized AI patients for simulated practice partners for novice counselors. After uncovering issues in GPT-4 simulations not adhering to expert-defined principles, we also introduce a novel principle-adherence prompting pipeline which shows 30% improvements in response quality and principle following for the downstream task. Via a user study with 25 counseling experts, we demonstrate that the pipeline makes it easy and effective to create AI patients that more faithfully resemble real patients, as judged by creators and third-party counselors. See our project website at https://roleplay-doh.github.io/ for code and data.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in simulating human language use and behavior. In this study, we delve into the intersection of persona variables and the capability of LLMs to simulate different perspectives. We find that persona variables can explain <10\% variance in annotations in existing subjective NLP datasets. Nonetheless, incorporating them via prompting in LLMs provides modest improvement. Persona prompting is most effective on data samples where disagreements among annotators are frequent yet confined to a limited range. A linear correlation exists: the more persona variables influence human annotations, the better LLMs predictions are using persona prompting. However, when the utility of persona variables is low (i.e., explaining <10\% of human annotations), persona prompting has little effect. Most subjective NLP datasets fall into this category, casting doubt on simulating diverse perspectives in the current NLP landscape.

Recent advancements in natural language processing, especially the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), have opened exciting possibilities for constructing computational simulations designed to replicate human behavior accurately. However, LLMs are complex statistical learners without straightforward deductive rules, making them prone to unexpected behaviors. In this study, we highlight the limitations of LLMs in simulating human interactions, particularly focusing on LLMs' ability to simulate political debates. Our findings indicate a tendency for LLM agents to conform to the model's inherent social biases despite being directed to debate from certain political perspectives. This tendency results in behavioral patterns that seem to deviate from well-established social dynamics among humans. We reinforce these observations using an automatic self-fine-tuning method, which enables us to manipulate the biases within the LLM and demonstrate that agents subsequently align with the altered biases. These results underscore the need for further research to develop methods that help agents overcome these biases, a critical step toward creating more realistic simulations.

Recent work has aimed to capture nuances of human behavior by using LLMs to simulate responses from particular demographics in settings like social science experiments and public opinion surveys. However, there are currently no established ways to discuss or evaluate the quality of such LLM simulations. Moreover, there is growing concern that these LLM simulations are flattened caricatures of the personas that they aim to simulate, failing to capture the multidimensionality of people and perpetuating stereotypes. To bridge these gaps, we present CoMPosT, a framework to characterize LLM simulations using four dimensions: Context, Model, Persona, and Topic. We use this framework to measure open-ended LLM simulations' susceptibility to caricature, defined via two criteria: individuation and exaggeration. We evaluate the level of caricature in scenarios from existing work on LLM simulations. We find that for GPT-4, simulations of certain demographics (political and marginalized groups) and topics (general, uncontroversial) are highly susceptible to caricature.