pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03881 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-04 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI· cs.HC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Enhancing behavioral nudges with large language model-based iterative personalization: A field experiment on electricity and hot-water conservation

Zonghan Li , Yi Liu , Chunyan Wang , Song Tong , Kaiping Peng , Feng Ji
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 16:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC
keywords nudginglarge language modelspersonalizationelectricity conservationfield experimentbehavioral interventionhot water conservationiterative feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

LLM-driven iterative personalization strengthens nudges and cuts electricity use more than standard approaches.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether large language models can improve nudges by creating and updating personalized, context-specific guidance across multiple rounds instead of delivering one-size-fits-all messages. In a three-arm randomized field trial with 233 university residents, nudges generated by an LLM agent reduced daily electricity consumption by 0.56 kWh per room compared with text-based controls and produced an 18.3 percentage-point higher adjusted saving rate, with the advantage appearing within the first two rounds and persisting. Hot-water conservation showed the same pattern but with smaller and less durable effects, consistent with greater friction in that behavior. The LLM messages emphasized prospective advice tailored to each resident's recent usage and circumstances, and participants engaged more with them. Readers should care because the result points to a scalable way to make repeated behavioral prompts more effective without increasing the intensity of the intervention itself.

Core claim

An LLM agent that generates and iteratively updates personalized nudges produces larger conservation effects than conventional text or image-enhanced nudges. Relative to the text-based control arm, the LLM-personalized arm reduced electricity use by 0.56 kWh per room-day and raised the adjusted saving rate by 18.3 percentage points; the hot-water results followed the same direction but were smaller and attenuated over time. The advantage emerged early, coincided with iterative message updates, and coincided with higher engagement and more prospective, context-specific content.

What carries the argument

The LLM agent that generates and iteratively updates personalized guidance based on each participant's recent behavior and context.

If this is right

  • LLM personalization can be applied to other repeated behaviors where feedback must be turned into concrete next steps.
  • The benefit is larger for behaviors with lower friction, such as electricity use, than for higher-friction ones like hot-water conservation.
  • Iterative updating maintains effects over time by keeping guidance current rather than static.
  • Image enhancements added little beyond plain text nudges, suggesting content adaptation matters more than visual format.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same iterative LLM approach could reduce cognitive load in other nudge domains such as health or financial decisions where circumstances change daily.
  • Integrating the agent with real-time smart-meter data streams would likely increase the precision of the context-specific advice.
  • Scaling beyond university residents requires checking whether the engagement advantage persists in more diverse populations and longer time horizons.

Load-bearing premise

Differences in outcomes are caused by the LLM's iterative personalization rather than unmeasured differences in message wording, delivery, or who participated.

What would settle it

A follow-up trial that holds message content constant but removes the iterative LLM updating step and still finds comparable savings would indicate that personalization alone, not the LLM iteration, drives the effect.

read the original abstract

Nudging is widely used to promote behavioral change, but its effectiveness is often limited when recipients must repeatedly translate feedback into workable next steps under changing circumstances. Large language models (LLMs) may help reduce part of this cognitive work by generating personalized guidance and updating it iteratively across intervention rounds. We developed an LLM agent for iterative personalization and tested it in a three-arm randomized experiment among 233 university residents in China, using daily electricity and shower hot-water conservation as objectively measured cases differing in friction. LLM-personalized nudges (T2) produced the largest conservation effects, while image-enhanced conventional nudges (T1) and text-based conventional nudges (C) showed similar outcomes (omnibus p = 0.009). Relative to C, T2 reduced electricity consumption by 0.56 kWh per room-day (p = 0.014), corresponding to an 18.3 percentage-point higher adjusted saving rate. This advantage emerged within the first two intervention rounds, alongside iterative updating of personalized guidance, and persisted thereafter. Hot-water outcomes followed the same direction but were smaller, less precisely estimated, and attenuated over time, consistent with stronger friction in this domain. LLM-personalized nudges emphasized prospective and context-specific guidance and were associated with higher participant engagement. This study provides field evidence that LLM-based iterative personalization can enhance behavioral nudging, with behavioral friction as a potential boundary condition. Larger trials and extension to more behaviors are warranted.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in a three-arm randomized field experiment with 233 university residents in China, LLM-based iterative personalized nudges (T2) outperform image-enhanced conventional nudges (T1) and text-based conventional nudges (C) on objectively measured daily electricity conservation, reducing consumption by 0.56 kWh per room-day relative to C (p=0.014) with an 18.3 percentage-point higher adjusted saving rate; hot-water effects are directionally consistent but smaller and attenuated, consistent with higher behavioral friction. The T2 advantage emerges early alongside iterative updates and is associated with higher engagement.

Significance. If the results hold, the work provides credible field evidence that LLMs can enhance nudging by generating context-specific, iteratively updated guidance that reduces cognitive friction in repeated behaviors. The randomized design with objective daily measurements supports causal claims for the electricity outcome, and the friction boundary condition supplies a falsifiable hypothesis for extension to other domains. This has practical implications for scaling personalized conservation interventions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental Design] Experimental Design section: The three-arm comparison lacks a non-iterative (static) LLM-personalized nudge arm. Consequently, the reported T2 superiority on electricity (0.56 kWh reduction, p=0.014) cannot be unambiguously attributed to iterative updating rather than differences in initial LLM-generated message features such as length, specificity, or engagement.
  2. [Results] Results section: While the omnibus p=0.009 and key pairwise estimates are presented, the manuscript provides insufficient detail on the exact regression specification (e.g., room-level clustering, fixed effects, covariate adjustments, and handling of the daily panel structure) used to obtain the 0.56 kWh estimate, limiting assessment of robustness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Discussion] Discussion: The acknowledged limitation of the university-resident sample could include more concrete suggestions for testing generalizability in non-student populations or other conservation behaviors.
  2. Tables and figures: Ensure all reported effect sizes include standard errors or confidence intervals and that axis labels clearly distinguish between raw consumption and adjusted saving rates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental Design] Experimental Design section: The three-arm comparison lacks a non-iterative (static) LLM-personalized nudge arm. Consequently, the reported T2 superiority on electricity (0.56 kWh reduction, p=0.014) cannot be unambiguously attributed to iterative updating rather than differences in initial LLM-generated message features such as length, specificity, or engagement.

    Authors: We agree that a static LLM-personalized arm would have permitted a cleaner decomposition of iterative updating versus initial LLM message characteristics. Our three-arm design was chosen to compare the complete iterative LLM intervention against both text and image-enhanced conventional nudges, reflecting the practical question of whether LLM-based iterative personalization adds value over standard nudging approaches. The timing of the T2 advantage (emerging with the first iterative updates) provides suggestive support for iteration, but we acknowledge it does not fully isolate this mechanism. In the revised manuscript we expand the limitations paragraph to explicitly note this design choice and recommend a static-LLM arm for future work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: While the omnibus p=0.009 and key pairwise estimates are presented, the manuscript provides insufficient detail on the exact regression specification (e.g., room-level clustering, fixed effects, covariate adjustments, and handling of the daily panel structure) used to obtain the 0.56 kWh estimate, limiting assessment of robustness.

    Authors: We have added a precise description of the regression model in the revised Results section (and a corresponding appendix table). The primary specification is a linear regression of daily consumption on treatment indicators with room-level clustering, day fixed effects, and pre-intervention covariates (baseline consumption and room occupancy). Standard errors are clustered at the room level to account for the daily panel structure. We also report robustness checks using alternative fixed-effect and clustering choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in empirical randomized field trial

full rationale

This paper reports outcomes from a three-arm randomized field experiment (n=233) that directly measures electricity and hot-water consumption under assigned nudge conditions. No derivation chain, first-principles prediction, parameter fitting, or self-citation load-bearing step exists; results are obtained from assignment, objective metering, and statistical comparison rather than reduction to prior fitted inputs or definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the randomized controlled trial and objective measurement of consumption; no free parameters are fitted to produce the reported effects, and no new theoretical entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of randomized controlled trials hold, including successful randomization, no interference between participants, and accurate objective measurement of daily consumption.
    These underpin causal attribution of the observed differences to the intervention arms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5583 in / 1269 out tokens · 44498 ms · 2026-05-13T16:41:57.014305+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    OECD Publishing, Paris, 2024

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development.LOGIC: Good Practice Principles for Mainstreaming Behavioural Public Policy. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    From evidence to delivery: an implementation-science blueprint for behavioural policy.Be- havioural Public Policy, page 1–12, 2025

    Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri. From evidence to delivery: an implementation-science blueprint for behavioural policy.Be- havioural Public Policy, page 1–12, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Zimbardo and Michael R

    Philip G. Zimbardo and Michael R. Leippe.The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, illustrated edition edition, 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Goldberg, and Sander van der Linden

    Magnus Bergquist, Maximilian Thiel, Matthew H. Goldberg, and Sander van der Linden. Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: A second-order meta-analysis.Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13):e2214851120, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Milkman, Xiaomin Li, Angela L

    Anastasia Buyalskaya, Hung Ho, Katherine L. Milkman, Xiaomin Li, Angela L. Duckworth, and Colin Camerer. What can machine learning teach us about habit formation? evidence from exercise and hygiene.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(17):e2216115120, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Michie, M

    S. Michie, M. M. van Stralen, and R. West. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.Implement Sci, 6:42, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Self- regulation and goal-directed behavior: A systematic literature review, public policy recommendations, and research agenda

    Soniya Billore, Tatiana Anisimova, and Demetris Vrontis. Self- regulation and goal-directed behavior: A systematic literature review, public policy recommendations, and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 156:113435, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Jamison, Berk Özler, Luca Parisotto, and Julius Dohbit Sama

    Susan Athey, Katy Bergstrom, Vitor Hadad, Julian C. Jamison, Berk Özler, Luca Parisotto, and Julius Dohbit Sama. Can per- sonalized digital counseling improve consumer search for mod- ern contraceptive methods?Science Advances, 9(40):eadg4420, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    N. K. Janz and M. H. Becker. The health belief model: a decade later.Health Educ Q, 11(1):1–47, 1984

    work page 1984

  10. [10]

    E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. a 35-year odyssey.Am Psychol, 57(9):705–17, 2002

    work page 2002

  11. [11]

    Wood and D

    W. Wood and D. T. Neal. A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface.Psychol Rev, 114(4):843–63, 2007

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well- being.Am Psychol, 55(1):68–78, 2000

    work page 2000

  13. [13]

    Koch, Dan Mønster, and Julia Nafziger

    Alexander K. Koch, Dan Mønster, and Julia Nafziger. Spillover effects of reminder nudges in complex environments.Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(17):e2322549121, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Y . Luo, A. Li, D. Soman, and J. Zhao. A meta-analytic cognitive framework of nudge and sludge.R Soc Open Sci, 10(11):230053, 2023

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Personalized nudging.Behavioural Public Policy, 6(1):150–159, 2022

    Stuart Mills. Personalized nudging.Behavioural Public Policy, 6(1):150–159, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    E. A. G. Hietbrink, C. Lansink, G. D. Laverman, M. M. R. V ollenbroek-Hutten, A. Middelweerd, and M. Tabak. Systematic review of dynamically tailored ehealth interventions targeting physical activity and healthy diet in chronic disease.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):696, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Can social information programs be more effective? the role of environmental identity for energy conservation.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 108:102467, 2021

    Jacopo Bonan, Cristina Cattaneo, Giovanna d’Adda, and Massimo Tavoni. Can social information programs be more effective? the role of environmental identity for energy conservation.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 108:102467, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Behavioral barriers impede pro-environmental decision-making: Experimen- tal evidence from incentivized laboratory and vignette studies

    Roman Hoffmann, Georg Kanitsar, and Marcel Seifert. Behavioral barriers impede pro-environmental decision-making: Experimen- tal evidence from incentivized laboratory and vignette studies. Ecological Economics, 225:108347, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Kraft, David Blazar, and Dylan Hogan

    Matthew A. Kraft, David Blazar, and Dylan Hogan. The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta- analysis of the causal evidence.Review of Educational Research, 88(4):547–588, 2018

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Instructional coaching personnel and program scalability.Education Finance and Policy, 19:1–64, 2023

    David Blazar, Doug McNamara, and Genine Blue. Instructional coaching personnel and program scalability.Education Finance and Policy, 19:1–64, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Sara Mahdavi, Christopher Semturs, Juraj Gottweis, Joelle Barral, Katherine Chou, Greg S

    Tao Tu, Mike Schaekermann, Anil Palepu, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Yong Cheng, Elahe Vedadi, Nenad Tomasev, Shekoofeh Azizi, Karan Singhal, Le Hou, Albert Webson, Kavita Kulkarni, S. Sara Mahdavi, Christopher Semturs, Juraj Gottweis, Joelle Barral, Katherine Chou, Greg S. Corrado, Yossi Matias, Alan Karthi...

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Exploring the potential of llms as personalized assistants: Dataset, evaluation, and analysis

    Jisoo Mok, Ik-hwan Kim, Sangkwon Park, and Sungroh Yoon. Exploring the potential of llms as personalized assistants: Dataset, evaluation, and analysis. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), page 10212–10239. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page

  23. [23]

    Enhancing beha vioral nudges with large language model-based iterative personalization15 Conversational planning for personal plans.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19500, 2025

    Konstantina Christakopoulou, Iris Qu, John Canny, Andrew Goodridge, Cj Adams, Minmin Chen, and Maja Matari ´c. Enhancing beha vioral nudges with large language model-based iterative personalization15 Conversational planning for personal plans.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19500, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Llm-based conversational agents for behaviour change support: A randomised controlled trial examining efficacy, safety, and the role of user behaviour

    Selina Meyer and David Elsweiler. Llm-based conversational agents for behaviour change support: A randomised controlled trial examining efficacy, safety, and the role of user behaviour. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 200:103514, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Bean, Rebecca Elizabeth Payne, Guy Parsons, Han- nah Rose Kirk, Juan Ciro, Rafael Mosquera-Gómez, Sara Hin- capié M, Aruna S

    Andrew M. Bean, Rebecca Elizabeth Payne, Guy Parsons, Han- nah Rose Kirk, Juan Ciro, Rafael Mosquera-Gómez, Sara Hin- capié M, Aruna S. Ekanayaka, Lionel Tarassenko, Luc Rocher, and Adam Mahdi. Reliability of llms as medical assistants for the general public: a randomized preregistered study.Nature Medicine, 32(2):609–615, 2026

    work page 2026

  26. [26]

    Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large lan- guage models in clinical decision-making.Nature Medicine, 30(9):2613–2622, 2024

    Paul Hager, Friederike Jungmann, Robbie Holland, Kunal Bha- gat, Inga Hubrecht, Manuel Knauer, Jakob Vielhauer, Marcus Makowski, Rickmer Braren, Georgios Kaissis, and Daniel Rueck- ert. Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large lan- guage models in clinical decision-making.Nature Medicine, 30(9):2613–2622, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Argyle, Christopher A

    Lisa P. Argyle, Christopher A. Bail, Ethan C. Busby, Joshua R. Gubler, Thomas Howe, Christopher Rytting, Taylor Sorensen, and David Wingate. Leveraging ai for democratic discourse: Chat interventions can improve online political conversations at scale.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(41):e2311627120, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Ocean- chat: The effect of virtual conversational ai agents on sustainable attitude and behavior change.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02863, 2025

    Pat Pataranutaporn, Alexander Doudkin, and Pattie Maes. Ocean- chat: The effect of virtual conversational ai agents on sustainable attitude and behavior change.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02863, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Tappin, Luke Hewitt, Ed Saunders, Sid Black, Hause Lin, Catherine Fist, Helen Margetts, David G

    Kobi Hackenburg, Ben M. Tappin, Luke Hewitt, Ed Saunders, Sid Black, Hause Lin, Catherine Fist, Helen Margetts, David G. Rand, and Christopher Summerfield. The levers of political persuasion with conversational artificial intelligence.Science, 390(6777):eaea3884, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Hardy, Thomas L

    Rachit Dubey, Mathew D. Hardy, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Rahul Bhui. Ai-generated visuals of car-free us cities help improve sup- port for sustainable policies.Nature Sustainability, 7(4):399–403, 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Costello, Gordon Pennycook, and David G

    Thomas H. Costello, Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with ai. Science, 385(6714):eadq1814, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Heinz, Daniel M

    Michael V . Heinz, Daniel M. Mackin, Brianna M. Trudeau, Sukanya Bhattacharya, Yinzhou Wang, Haley A. Banta, Abi D. Jewett, Abigail J. Salzhauer, Tess Z. Griffin, and Nicholas C. Ja- cobson. Randomized trial of a generative ai chatbot for mental health treatment.NEJM AI, 2(4), 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Young, Francine C

    Andrew Allen, Allan H. Young, Francine C. Jellesma, Anton V orobev, Evgeniia Ivanova, Nikolay Babakov, Ani Gisnarian, and Lee Kannis-Dymand. An exploratory randomized controlled trial of an ai-enabled mental health intervention for generalized anxiety.Journal of Affective Disorders, 401:121275, 2026

    work page 2026

  34. [34]

    Sinclair, Danielle Cosme, Kirsten Lydic, Diego A

    Alyssa H. Sinclair, Danielle Cosme, Kirsten Lydic, Diego A. Reinero, Michael E. Mann, and Emily B. Falk. Reply to dablander et al.: Identifying interventions that change intentions lays a valuable foundation for behavior change.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(28):e2513159122, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    To- ward achieving persistent behavior change in household water conservation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(24):e2023014118, 2021

    Vivek Vivek, Deepak Malghan, and Kanchan Mukherjee. To- ward achieving persistent behavior change in household water conservation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(24):e2023014118, 2021

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Rafter, and Kira E

    Omar Isaac Asensio, Olga Churkina, Becky D. Rafter, and Kira E. O’Hare. Housing policies and energy efficiency spillovers in low and moderate income communities.Nature Sustainability, 7(5):590–601, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Consumer purchases of energy-efficient appliances: A systematic literature review and research agenda

    Hoang Viet Nguyen, Bao Ngoc Le, Weng Marc Lim, Thac Dang- Van, and Ninh Nguyen. Consumer purchases of energy-efficient appliances: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Energy Efficiency, 18(4):29, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    One thing leads to another: Evidence on the scope and persistence of be- havioral spillovers.Journal of Public Economics, 236:105166, 2024

    Alexander Goetz, Harald Mayr, and Renate Schubert. One thing leads to another: Evidence on the scope and persistence of be- havioral spillovers.Journal of Public Economics, 236:105166, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Jin Han Kim and Michael Kaemingk. Persisting effects of social norm feedback letters in reducing household electricity usage in post-soviet eastern europe: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization, 191:153–161, 2021

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Smart metering and systems to support a conscious use of water and electricity.Energy, 45(1):528–540, 2012

    Carlos Alberto Fróes Lima and José Ricardo Portillo Navas. Smart metering and systems to support a conscious use of water and electricity.Energy, 45(1):528–540, 2012

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    Hoppen, Rieke M

    Thole H. Hoppen, Rieke M. Cuno, Janna Nelson, Frederike Lem- mel, Pascal Schlechter, and Nexhmedin Morina. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining social comparison as a behaviour change technique across the behavioural sciences. Nature Human Behaviour, 2025

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Rank ordering information on energy use can promote energy-conserving behavior in china.Communications Earth&Environment, 6(1):947, 2025

    Wenbo Li, Xiu Cheng, Ruyin Long, Jiaxin Huang, and Chengjiang Li. Rank ordering information on energy use can promote energy-conserving behavior in china.Communications Earth&Environment, 6(1):947, 2025

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Motivating metrics for household water-use feedback.Resources, Conserva- tion and Recycling, 103:29–46, 2015

    Ariane Liu, Damien Giurco, and Pierre Mukheibir. Motivating metrics for household water-use feedback.Resources, Conserva- tion and Recycling, 103:29–46, 2015

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    The design of an energy and water advice programme for low-income households.Energy and Buildings, 110:426–434, 2016

    Marina Laskari, Stavroula Karatasou, and Mat Santamouris. The design of an energy and water advice programme for low-income households.Energy and Buildings, 110:426–434, 2016

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience.Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(4):395–418, 2003

    Elizabeth Shove. Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience.Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(4):395–418, 2003

    work page 2003

  46. [46]

    Dynamic thermal responses and showering thermal comfort under different conditions.Building and Environment, 237:110322, 2023

    Maohui Luo, Shuang Xu, Yin Tang, Hang Yu, Xiang Zhou, and Zong Chen. Dynamic thermal responses and showering thermal comfort under different conditions.Building and Environment, 237:110322, 2023

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    turning offthe lights

    Daniel C. Lundberg, Janine A. Tang, and Shahzeen Z. Attari. Easy but not effective: Why “turning offthe lights” remains a salient energy conserving behaviour in the united states.Energy Research&Social Science, 58:101257, 2019

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory?Minds and Machines, 26(1):149–183, 2016

    Till Grüne-Yanoffand Ralph Hertwig. Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory?Minds and Machines, 26(1):149–183, 2016

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Boosts vs nudges: perceived effectiveness and criticism shape preferences for sustainable be- havioural policies.Energy Policy, 209:114953, 2026

    Yavor Paunov and Till Grüne-Yanoff. Boosts vs nudges: perceived effectiveness and criticism shape preferences for sustainable be- havioural policies.Energy Policy, 209:114953, 2026

    work page 2026

  50. [50]

    Grelle and W

    S. Grelle and W. Hofmann. When and why do people ac- cept public-policy interventions? an integrative public-policy- acceptance framework.Perspect Psychol Sci, 19(1):258–279, 2024

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Nudging: Progress to date and future directions.Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 161:3–19, 2020

    John Beshears and Harry Kosowsky. Nudging: Progress to date and future directions.Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- sion Processes, 161:3–19, 2020

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Patterson and William Skimmyhorn

    Richard W. Patterson and William Skimmyhorn. How do behav- ioral approaches to increase savings compare? evidence from multiple interventions in the u.s. army.Management Science, 2025. Enhancing beha vioral nudges with large language model-based iterative personalization16

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Han, Lily Roh, Naveen Raja, Sitaram Vangala, Hardikkumar Modi, Shital Pandya, Michael Sloyan, and Daniel M

    Hengchen Dai, Silvia Saccardo, Maria A. Han, Lily Roh, Naveen Raja, Sitaram Vangala, Hardikkumar Modi, Shital Pandya, Michael Sloyan, and Daniel M. Croymans. Behavioural nudges in- crease covid-19 vaccinations.Nature, 597(7876):404–409, 2021

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Routledge, 2023

    Stefan Drews and Jeroen CJM van den Bergh.A critical assess- ment of the effectiveness of low-carbon nudges, page 268–284. Routledge, 2023

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Nudging towards sustainability: a comprehensive review of behavioral ap- proaches to eco-friendly choice.Discover Sustainability, 5(1):444, 2024

    Babak Amiri, Amirhossein Jafarian, and Zahra Abdi. Nudging towards sustainability: a comprehensive review of behavioral ap- proaches to eco-friendly choice.Discover Sustainability, 5(1):444, 2024

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Bibhas Chakraborty and Susan A. Murphy. Dynamic treatment regimes.Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 1(V ol- ume 1, 2014):447–464, 2014

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Bridging innovation and equity: Advancing public health through just-in-time adaptive interventions.Annual Review of Public Health, 46(V olume 46, 2025):43–68, 2025

    Nur Hani Zainal, Xueqing Liu, Utek Leong, Xiaoxi Yan, and Bibhas Chakraborty. Bridging innovation and equity: Advancing public health through just-in-time adaptive interventions.Annual Review of Public Health, 46(V olume 46, 2025):43–68, 2025

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Nahum-Shani, S

    I. Nahum-Shani, S. N. Smith, B. J. Spring, L. M. Collins, K. Witkiewitz, A. Tewari, and S. A. Murphy. Just-in-time adap- tive interventions (jitais) in mobile health: Key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support.Ann Behav Med, 52(6):446–462, 2018

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    N. Bol, E. S. Smit, and M. L. A. Lustria. Tailored health commu- nication: Opportunities and challenges in the digital era.Digit Health, 6:2055207620958913, 2020

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    S. A. Lee and J. H. Park. Systematic review and meta analysis of standalone digital behavior change interventions on physical activity.NPJ Digit Med, 8(1):436, 2025

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    The development and use of ai chatbots for health behavior change: Scoping review.J Med Internet Res, 28:e79677, 2026

    Lingyi Fu, Ryan Burns, Yuhuan Xie, Jincheng Shen, Shandian Zhe, Paul Estabrooks, and Yang Bai. The development and use of ai chatbots for health behavior change: Scoping review.J Med Internet Res, 28:e79677, 2026

    work page 2026

  62. [62]

    Karine Karine and Benjamin M. Marlin. Enhancing adaptive behavioral interventions with llm inference from participant de- scribed states, 2025

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Rothkopf, and Kristian Kersting

    Patrick Schramowski, Cigdem Turan, Nico Andersen, Con- stantin A. Rothkopf, and Kristian Kersting. Large pre-trained language models contain human-like biases of what is right and wrong to do.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(3):258–268, 2022

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Whose opinions do language models reflect?, 2023

    Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Whose opinions do language models reflect?, 2023

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    A large-scale replication of scenario-based experiments in psychology and management using large language models.Nature Computational Science, 5(8):627–634, 2025

    Ziyan Cui, Ning Li, and Huaikang Zhou. A large-scale replication of scenario-based experiments in psychology and management using large language models.Nature Computational Science, 5(8):627–634, 2025

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Talarico

    Jennifer M. Talarico. The merits of undergraduate student samples. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2025

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks, 2020

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks, 2020

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2022

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    L. A. Palinkas, S. M. Horwitz, C. A. Green, J. P. Wisdom, N. Duan, and K. Hoagwood. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research.Adm Policy Ment Health, 42(5):533–44, 2015

    work page 2015

  70. [70]

    Ortiga, Jue Wang, and Meng-Hsuan Chou

    Yasmin Y . Ortiga, Jue Wang, and Meng-Hsuan Chou. Interna- tional academic or citizen scholar?: Singaporean returnees in the global city.Cities, 137:104327, 2023

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    Petersen, Cynthia M

    John E. Petersen, Cynthia M. Frantz, Md Rumi Shammin, Tess M. Yanisch, Evan Tincknell, and Noel Myers. Electricity and water conservation on college and university campuses in response to national competitions among dormitories: Quantifying relation- ships between behavior, conservation strategies and psychological metrics.PLOS ONE, 10(12):e0144070, 2015

    work page 2015

  72. [72]

    Social foundations of thought and action.Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23-28):2, 1986

    Albert Bandura. Social foundations of thought and action.Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23-28):2, 1986

    work page 1986

  73. [73]

    Potential of large language model-powered nudges for promoting daily water and energy conservation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11531, 2025

    Zonghan Li, Song Tong, Yi Liu, Kaiping Peng, and Chunyan Wang. Potential of large language model-powered nudges for promoting daily water and energy conservation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11531, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    quanteda: An r package for the quantitative analysis of textual data.Journal of Open Source Software, 3:774, 2018

    Kenneth Benoit, Kohei Watanabe, Haiyan Wang, Paul Nulty, Adam Obeng, Stefan Müller, and Akitaka Matsuo. quanteda: An r package for the quantitative analysis of textual data.Journal of Open Source Software, 3:774, 2018

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Keyword- assisted topic models.American Journal of Political Science, 68(2):730–750, 2024

    Shusei Eshima, Kosuke Imai, and Tomoya Sasaki. Keyword- assisted topic models.American Journal of Political Science, 68(2):730–750, 2024

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    Künzel, Jasjeet S

    Sören R. Künzel, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Peter J. Bickel, and Bin Yu. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10):4156–4165, 2019

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Edward H. Kennedy. Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects.Electronic Journal of Statistics, 2020

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Long-term water conservation is fostered by smart meter-based feedback and digital user engagement.npj Clean Water, 4(1):29, 2021

    Andrea Cominola, Matteo Giuliani, Andrea Castelletti, Piero Fraternali, Sergio Luis Herrera Gonzalez, Joan Carles Guardiola Herrero, Jasminko Novak, and Andrea Emilio Rizzoli. Long-term water conservation is fostered by smart meter-based feedback and digital user engagement.npj Clean Water, 4(1):29, 2021

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Cambridge University Press, 2022

    Steven L Brunton and J Nathan Kutz.Data-driven science and engineering: Machine learning, dynamical systems, and control. Cambridge University Press, 2022

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    A comparison study on similarity and dissimilarity measures in clustering continuous data.PloS one, 10(12):e0144059, 2015

    Ali Seyed Shirkhorshidi, Saeed Aghabozorgi, and Teh Ying Wah. A comparison study on similarity and dissimilarity measures in clustering continuous data.PloS one, 10(12):e0144059, 2015

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.