Modeling Human Behavior with Type Vectors Using AI

What a language model will and will not do is largely set during post-training, but which behaviors it expresses, hides, or resists is not revealed by prompting alone. Persona vectors, behavioral directions in activation space, can probe this organization, but prior work covers only a handful of traits. We present the first systematic application of persona vectors at this scale, compiling a 53-trait inventory across four behaviorally distinct domains and labeling every trait in two open-weight models as natural (expressed at baseline), steerable latent but amplifiable, or intractable (resistant to standard extraction). Both models default to helpful, task-oriented behavior: all nine agentic traits are natural, and their default clinician behavior matches a board-certified psychologist's independent desirability judgments on 16 of 17 traits. Steering produces its largest gains on traits these defaults exclude: hyperbole, hallucination, and sycophancy. The same asymmetry holds across all 171 generic-trait pairs: two steerable traits can collapse the composition, but pairs involving a default never do. Where standard extraction fails on a trait like "evil," a vector transferred from a fine-tuned variant still recovers it, with the residual refusals appearing inside the model's chain-of-thought. Persona vectors are most informative not as a set of controls but as a probe of behavioral organization.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet how closely LLMs mirror human decision-making remains poorly understood. This gap is critical: misalignment could produce harmful outcomes in practice, while failure to replicate human behavior renders LLMs ineffective as social simulators. Here, we address this gap by replicating large-scale game-theoretic experiments and by introducing a systematic prompting and probing framework for machine-behavioral evaluation. We test three open models typically used to power agents (Llama, Mistral, and Qwen). Across 121 dyadic games spanning four classical game types, Llama reproduces human cooperation patterns with high fidelity, while Qwen aligns closely with Nash equilibrium predictions. Characterizing models through behavioral phenotyping, we find that humans and Llama share an envious decision profile, while Qwen and Mistral exhibit different profiles. An attention-based analysis of payoff salience reveals Llama processes payoff information in a structured, layer-dependent manner absent in Qwen and Mistral, suggesting a mechanistic basis for its closer alignment with human behavior. Population-level behavioral replication is achieved without persona-based prompting, simplifying the simulation process. Extending the experimental parameter space beyond the original human-tested games, we generate and preregister testable hypotheses for novel game configurations. Our findings demonstrate appropriately configured LLMs can replicate aggregate human behavioral patterns, exhibit human-like decision phenotypes, and enable systematic exploration of unexplored experimental spaces, offering a complementary approach to traditional behavioral research that generates new empirical predictions about human social decision-making.

Human choice behavior, including route choice, exhibits systematic behavioral biases that deviate from the assumptions of full rationality. Cumulative prospect theory (CPT) has been widely recognized as an effective framework for characterizing such behavioral patterns. However, its large-scale application, particularly in simulation and agent-based modeling, critically depends on specifying individual-level CPT parameters, which remain a major bottleneck. Conventional approaches typically rely on surveys and controlled experiments to calibrate CPT parameters, yet these methods are difficult to generalize and often fail to capture the full diversity of human decision-making. To address this challenge, this paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reproduce human behavioral biases in choice-making without explicit specification of prospect-theoretic parameters. Using route choice as a representative scenario, we design a behavioral evaluation framework and systematically compare LLM-generated decisions with established human behavioral patterns predicted by CPT. Experimental results demonstrate that LLMs are capable of reproducing non-rational human choice biases and can exhibit decision behaviors consistent with prospect-theoretic effects under uncertainty. These findings suggest that generative AI models may provide a scalable alternative for modeling human decision processes and offer a promising foundation for next-generation large-scale agent-based simulation and AI-driven behavioral research.