Can large language models assist choice modelling? Insights into prompting strategies and current models capabilities
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866908890384302080 |
|---|---|
| author | Sfeir, Georges Nova, Gabriel Hess, Stephane van Cranenburgh, Sander |
| author_facet | Sfeir, Georges Nova, Gabriel Hess, Stephane van Cranenburgh, Sander |
| contents | Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming widely used to support various workflows across different disciplines, yet their potential in discrete choice modelling remains relatively unexplored. This work examines the potential of LLMs as assistive agents in the specification and, where technically feasible, estimation of Multinomial Logit models. We implement a systematic experimental framework involving twelve versions of seven leading LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Gemma, Llama, and Mistral) evaluated under five experimental configurations. These configurations vary along three dimensions: (i) modelling goal (suggesting vs. suggesting and estimating MNL models); (ii) prompting strategy (Zero-Shot vs. Chain-of-Thoughts (CoT)); and (iii) information availability (full dataset vs. data dictionary summarising variable names and types). Each specification suggested by the LLMs is implemented, estimated, and evaluated based on goodness-of-fit metrics, behavioural plausibility, and model complexity. Our findings reveal that proprietary LLMs can generate valid and behaviourally sound utility specifications, particularly when guided by structured prompts (CoT). Open-weight models such as Llama and Gemma struggled to produce meaningful specifications. Notably, some LLMs performed better when provided with just data dictionary, suggesting that limiting raw data access may enhance internal reasoning capabilities. Among all LLMs, GPT o3, operating in an agentic setting, was uniquely capable of correctly estimating its own specifications by executing self-generated code. Overall, the results demonstrate both the promise and current limitations of LLMs as assistive agents in discrete choice modelling, not only for model specification but also for supporting modelling decision and estimation, and provide practical guidance for integrating these tools into choice modellers' workflows. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2507_21790 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Can large language models assist choice modelling? Insights into prompting strategies and current models capabilities Sfeir, Georges Nova, Gabriel Hess, Stephane van Cranenburgh, Sander Econometrics Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming widely used to support various workflows across different disciplines, yet their potential in discrete choice modelling remains relatively unexplored. This work examines the potential of LLMs as assistive agents in the specification and, where technically feasible, estimation of Multinomial Logit models. We implement a systematic experimental framework involving twelve versions of seven leading LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Gemma, Llama, and Mistral) evaluated under five experimental configurations. These configurations vary along three dimensions: (i) modelling goal (suggesting vs. suggesting and estimating MNL models); (ii) prompting strategy (Zero-Shot vs. Chain-of-Thoughts (CoT)); and (iii) information availability (full dataset vs. data dictionary summarising variable names and types). Each specification suggested by the LLMs is implemented, estimated, and evaluated based on goodness-of-fit metrics, behavioural plausibility, and model complexity. Our findings reveal that proprietary LLMs can generate valid and behaviourally sound utility specifications, particularly when guided by structured prompts (CoT). Open-weight models such as Llama and Gemma struggled to produce meaningful specifications. Notably, some LLMs performed better when provided with just data dictionary, suggesting that limiting raw data access may enhance internal reasoning capabilities. Among all LLMs, GPT o3, operating in an agentic setting, was uniquely capable of correctly estimating its own specifications by executing self-generated code. Overall, the results demonstrate both the promise and current limitations of LLMs as assistive agents in discrete choice modelling, not only for model specification but also for supporting modelling decision and estimation, and provide practical guidance for integrating these tools into choice modellers' workflows. |
| title | Can large language models assist choice modelling? Insights into prompting strategies and current models capabilities |
| topic | Econometrics Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21790 |