Do LLM-Driven Agents Exhibit Engagement Mechanisms? Controlled Tests of Information Load, Descriptive Norms, and Popularity Cues

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have spurred growing interest in using LLM-integrated agents for social simulation, often under the implicit assumption that realistic population dynamics will emerge once role-specified agents are placed in a networked multi-agent setting. This position paper argues that LLM-based agents alone are not (yet) sufficient for social simulation. We attribute this over-optimism to a systematic mismatch between what current agent pipelines are typically optimized and validated to produce and what simulation-as-science requires. Concretely, role-playing plausibility does not imply faithful human behavioral validity; collective outcomes are frequently mediated by agent-environment co-dynamics rather than agent-agent messaging alone; and results can be dominated by interaction protocols, scheduling, and initial information priors. To make these underlying mechanisms explicit and auditable, we propose a unified formulation of AI agent-based social simulation as an environment-involved Markov game with explicit exposure and scheduling mechanisms, from which we derive concrete actions for design, evaluation, and interpretation.

Simulations based on large language models (LLMs) have proven to be powerful for understanding human behavior, making them valuable additions to the social scientific toolkit. However, LLMs are ultimately black boxes based on deep neural networks which limits their value for social science. This is because of a lack of (i) interpretability: i.e. the ability to assign clear mechanisms driving observed behavior; and a lack of (ii) steerability: i.e. the ability to mute or amplify specific theoretically meaningful mechanisms of action to drive specific model behavior. Here, we demonstrate how the black box could be opened up to further enrich LLM-based simulations. Specifically, we compare three types of methods: (1) prompt-based manipulation, (2) SAE-derived feature steering, and (3) probe-based direction steering and examine their utility for LLM-based social scientific simulations. We do so by interpreting and steering two foundational components of human behaviors, namely preferences (risk attitudes, altruism) and capabilities (divergent creativity, product innovation), operationalized using four classic economic and creative tasks implemented as natural-language interactions. Overall, our results show that SAE- and probe-based techniques often outperform basic prompt-based methods for steering LLM agents, although this advantage depends on the specific prompting strategy involved. Together, SAEs and probes constitute an effective pipeline for social scientists seeking to interpret and steer agents in social simulations: SAEs decompose agents' internal representations into human-readable features, after which probes can reliably shift agents' behaviors in specified directions. We discuss implications of these methods for future work using LLM agents for social scientific simulations.

The scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations should be no stronger than the robustness audits that support them. Generative agents bring new expressive power to agent-based modeling, enabling simulations of collective social processes like cooperation, polarization, and norm formation. Yet they also introduce complexity through additional architectural choices, such as agent specification, memory representation, interaction protocols, and environment design. Small perturbations that appear minor to researchers can cascade into macro-level outcomes through repeated interaction, creating a "butterfly effect." Consequently, scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations may reflect implementation artifacts rather than the social mechanisms being modeled. We support this position with two case studies: a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma and a social media echo chamber simulation. Across multiple models, minor perturbations in persona format and game-instruction framing shift cooperation rates by up to 76 percentage points, while network homophily and hub assignment produce significant and consistent shifts in polarization metrics. We also find that sensitivity is unevenly distributed across both architectural choices and model families: the same perturbation that produces the 76 pp shift in one frontier model only shifts another by 1 pp. Robustness is therefore a property that should be measured per claim and per model, not assumed. To address this validation gap, we introduce TRAILS (Taxonomy for Robustness Audits In LLM Simulations), a robustness-audit taxonomy spanning three levels of simulation design: agent (micro-level), interaction (meso-level), and system (macro-level). We call for robustness to become a first-order validation requirement before LLM social simulations are used to explain mechanisms, evaluate interventions, or inform decisions.