{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2023:OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL","short_pith_number":"pith:OCVVI7J6","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"70ab547d3e86e5543b2d7ec054b64602ea42de39826ed297a0d9f834de28ab7b","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2305.02531","version":6},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Can LLMs Capture Human Preferences?","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Ali Goli, Amandeep Singh","submitted_at":"2023-05-04T03:51:31Z","abstract_excerpt":"We explore the viability of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically OpenAI's GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, in emulating human survey respondents and eliciting preferences, with a focus on intertemporal choices. Leveraging the extensive literature on intertemporal discounting for benchmarking, we examine responses from LLMs across various languages and compare them to human responses, exploring preferences between smaller, sooner, and larger, later rewards. Our findings reveal that both GPT models demonstrate less patience than humans, with GPT-3.5 exhibiting a lexicographic preference for earlier rewa"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2305.02531","kind":"arxiv","version":6},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CL","submitted_at":"2023-05-04T03:51:31Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.AI"],"title_canon_sha256":"07b82b7c86ef5cffa937ee14615c67c3925807ae305337424c0bff657aef4368","abstract_canon_sha256":"781b73ead8ff4fdb8605428571f3fa57786b9a77d8372daeba1e61aa6e86875c"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.988351Z","signature_b64":"waZyPEMZ9DkR0Q2/XTfhIkSpKPCpjouD7c9GF426US/a1xKeUTe2R1cwYMst5FsPwlx79odYOolPnyFJ15I6CA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"70ab547d3e86e5543b2d7ec054b64602ea42de39826ed297a0d9f834de28ab7b","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987829Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987829Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Can LLMs Capture Human Preferences?","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Ali Goli, Amandeep Singh","submitted_at":"2023-05-04T03:51:31Z","abstract_excerpt":"We explore the viability of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically OpenAI's GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, in emulating human survey respondents and eliciting preferences, with a focus on intertemporal choices. Leveraging the extensive literature on intertemporal discounting for benchmarking, we examine responses from LLMs across various languages and compare them to human responses, exploring preferences between smaller, sooner, and larger, later rewards. Our findings reveal that both GPT models demonstrate less patience than humans, with GPT-3.5 exhibiting a lexicographic preference for earlier rewa"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2305.02531","kind":"arxiv","version":6},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2305.02531/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2305.02531","created_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2305.02531v6","created_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2305.02531","created_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"OCVVI7J6Q3SV","created_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZN","created_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"OCVVI7J6","created_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":3,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2511.20284","citing_title":"Can LLMs Make (Personalized) Access Control Decisions?","ref_index":61,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.00369","citing_title":"InvEvolve: Evolving White-Box Inventory Policies via Large Language Models with Performance Guarantees","ref_index":155,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.00369","citing_title":"InvEvolve: Evolving White-Box Inventory Policies via Large Language Models with Performance Guarantees","ref_index":155,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL","json":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/OCVVI7J6"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/OCVVI7J6","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2305.02531&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/OCVVI7J6Q3SVIOZNP3AFJNSGAL/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T07:50:37.987897+00:00"}