Separating Diagnosis from Control: Auditable Policy Adaptation in Agent-Based Simulations with LLM-Based Diagnostics

Agent-based modeling (ABM) has the capability to model millions of individuals and their interactions, which is useful for policy making. However, ABMs have traditionally relied on static prior, which prevents the models from adapting to real-time changes. Our research provides a novel approach to addressing this information gap. Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to predict human decision-making. Here, we introduce a scalable Hybrid Agent-based and Language-driven Epidemic (HALE) modeling framework that leverages LLMs to predict human decision-making in an ABM simulation. As a proof-of-concept, we use HALE to simulate COVID-19 and its effects in Salt Lake County, UT.

Single-agent large language model (LLM) systems struggle to simultaneously support diverse conversational functions and maintain safety in behavioral health communication. We propose a safety-aware, role-orchestrated multi-agent LLM framework designed to simulate supportive behavioral health dialogue through coordinated, role-differentiated agents. Conversational responsibilities are decomposed across specialized agents, including empathy-focused, action-oriented, and supervisory roles, while a prompt-based controller dynamically activates relevant agents and enforces continuous safety auditing. Using semi-structured interview transcripts from the DAIC-WOZ corpus, we evaluate the framework with scalable proxy metrics capturing structural quality, functional diversity, and computational characteristics. Results illustrate clear role differentiation, coherent inter-agent coordination, and predictable trade-offs between modular orchestration, safety oversight, and response latency when compared to a single-agent baseline. This work emphasizes system design, interpretability, and safety, positioning the framework as a simulation and analysis tool for behavioral health informatics and decision-support research rather than a clinical intervention.

Modern agentic systems extend language models with external tools, enabling them to complete complex tasks through multi-turn interactions. As these agents are deployed in consequential settings, they are often constrained by policies governing pricing, privacy, confirmation, safety, and other requirements. However, existing evaluation methods leave a critical gap: capability benchmarks measure what agents can accomplish, while content-safety red-teaming measures harmful generations, but neither tests whether agents comply with predefined policies during otherwise valid tool use. Such policy violations are difficult to audit because their effects may emerge only after several turns, span multiple tool calls, or surface in downstream systems. We propose PROBE (Policy Rule Observation via Behavioral Exploration), an algorithm for training LLM-based auditors that interact with deployed agents as realistic users and probe them for policy violations through multi-turn, tool-mediated dialogue. We formalize agent auditing as a two-player Markov game and propose a composite reward that balances violation discovery, behavioral plausibility, conversation progress, and policy diversity. To study training objectives and reward design, we compare GRPO, DPO, and GFlowNet-based optimization in a controlled setting. Across extensive experiments, auditors trained with PROBE uncover substantially broader and higher-yield policy violations than same-architecture zero-shot adversaries, even when the auditor is significantly smaller than the target agent. Our results show that multi-turn behavioral auditing is a distinct and necessary axis of agent evaluation, complementing capability and safety benchmarks. PROBE offers a scalable path toward automated policy auditing for real-world agentic systems and suggests a co-evolutionary loop in which auditors expose failures and agents improve from auditor feedback.