Large Language Models as Supervised Extraction Assistants: Lowering the Barrier to Documentation Standard Adoption in Agent-Based Modelling

Agent-based models (ABMs) rely on simple, explicit and reproducible rules for individual decision making, while complex collective behavior emerges from interactions among agents. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) make it tempting to replace, enrich, or perturb these rules with LLM-based agentic capabilities. However, this raises a methodological question: how does introducing LLM-driven decisions affect the reliability, computational cost, and behavior of ABM simulations? We investigate this for Mesa ABM models, a popular Python library for ABMs, analyzed by statistical model checking. Building on Mesa's integration with the statistical model checker MultiVeStA, we extend the classical Schelling segregation model with a hybrid population: ordinary agents classify neighbors using the standard symbolic rule, while one agent delegates this task to an LLM through tool calls. The LLM-enabled agent receives natural-language descriptions of neighboring agents and invokes tools that increment counters of similar/different neighbors; these counters determine its happiness according to the original Schelling dynamics. This provides a minimal but controlled setting where the semantic, operational, and computational behavior of LLM-based decisions can be studied inside an otherwise standard ABM. We report preliminary experiments with locally served LLMs of different sizes, showing that smaller models may fail simple semantic classification experiments or become operationally unusable during repeated tool-call generation, while larger tested models pass these preliminary checks. We discuss how statistical model checking can estimate classical ABM observables and quantify the impact of introducing agentic LLM components into simulation models.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate high-level diverse phenomena without explicitly programmed rules. This capability has led to their adoption within different agent-based models (ABMs) and social simulations. Recent studies investigate their ability to generate different phenomena of interest, for example, human behavior on social media platforms or alien behavior in game-theoretic scenarios. However, capability, prediction, and explanation are different--drawing from the philosophy of science and mechanisms literature, explanation requires showing, to some degree, how a phenomenon is produced by related organized entities and activities. For modelers, describing the characteristics of an experiment or whether a simulation provides progress in capability (or explanation), can be difficult without being grounded in potentially distant research areas. We integrate recent work on LLM-ABMs with contemporary philosophy of science literature and use it to operationalize a definition of 'plausibility' in a four-level scale. Our scale separates the evaluation of a model's generative sufficiency (ability to reproduce a phenomenon) from its mechanistic plausibility (how the phenomenon could be produced), and clarifies the distinct roles of different models, such as predictive and explanatory ones. We introduce this as the Mechanism Plausibility Scale.

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.