Papers › Evaluating LLM Adaptation to Sociodemographic Factors: User Profile vs. Dialogue History

Evaluating LLM Adaptation to Sociodemographic Factors: User Profile vs. Dialogue History

27 May 2025arXiv:2505.21362archive 2025-07-28

Qishuai Zhong, Zongmin Li, Siqi Fan, Aixin Sun

Effective engagement by large language models (LLMs) requires adapting responses to users' sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, occupation, and education level. While many real-world applications leverage dialogue history for contextualization, existing evaluations of LLMs' behavioral adaptation often focus on single-turn prompts. In this paper, we propose a framework to evaluate LLM adaptation when attributes are introduced either (1) explicitly via user profiles in the prompt or (2) implicitly through multi-turn dialogue history. We assess the consistency of model behavior across these modalities. Using a multi-agent pipeline, we construct a synthetic dataset pairing dialogue histories with distinct user profiles and employ questions from the Value Survey Module (VSM 2013) (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2016) to probe value expression. Our findings indicate that most models adjust their expressed values in response to demographic changes, particularly in age and education level, but consistency varies. Models with stronger reasoning capabilities demonstrate greater alignment, indicating the importance of reasoning in robust sociodemographic adaptation.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from FerdinandZhong/model_behavior_adaption. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections