Behavioral Alignment

Human values are deep motivational orientations that shape human behaviors. In e-commerce, they reveal the stable drivers behind users' purchase decisions. Compared with short-term interests, consumer values better explain how users evaluate products before purchase. However, consumer values are often implicit in complex and fragmented behavioral trajectories, leaving value measurement from e-commerce behaviors largely underexplored. To this end, we propose the Behavior-to-Value (B2V) task, which aims to identify consumer values from e-commerce behavioral trajectories. Centered on this task, we first construct the E-commerce Consumption Value Taxonomy (ECVT) and introduce B2V-Bench, the first B2V dataset and benchmark, based on anonymized Taobao behavioral logs. B2V-Bench consists of real-world purchase decision episodes, covering 25 types of purchase behaviors, along with corresponding consumer value orientations manifested in each episode. To improve consumer value measurement accuracy, we further present B2V-Verifier, a behavior-to-value measurement model based on Value Verification Tuning, which learns to assess whether behaviors provide sufficient evidence for each value inference. Experiments show that B2V-Verifier outperforms strong LLM baselines, improving multi-label classification by 34%. The dataset and code will be publicly released upon acceptance.

Activation steering promises modular control of language model behavior: a behavior such as politeness corresponds to a direction in a model's activations, and adding that direction while it generates should switch the behavior on and leave everything else alone. It does not. We ask what decides which other behaviors move, and by how much, and find that it is the model rather than the behavior being steered. A steer relaxes the model toward a small set of behaviors it already favors, chiefly refusal, sycophancy, and poeticism, and that set is much the same whatever is steered. Three results across 24 behaviors and ten instruction-tuned models support this, every effect read off the generated text by a language-model judge rather than off a probe. That readout matters: all 24 behaviors are linearly decodable, but only 20 change what the model writes. First, a direction carrying no behavioral content, matched to a real steer only in the size of the vector it adds, moves the same behaviors in the same order as real steers do, while producing none of the behaviors that need a specific direction. Second, most interference runs one way, so it cannot be an overlap between two directions: steering profanity makes the model toxic, while steering toxicity leaves profanity untouched. Third, with a behavior held out entirely, geometry measured on the others explains almost none of the interference it takes part in. The account holds on all ten models, the pull toward defaults strongest below 10B parameters and weakening in each family's largest. Reading a steer as a perturbation whose endpoint the model fixes implies that disentangling behavior directions cannot by itself make steering modular.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) is essential for their safe deployment. Current alignment methods mainly optimize observable responses, yet models remain vulnerable when the same harmful intent is recast in unfamiliar or adversarial forms that humans can easily recognize. Prototype theory offers an account of this adaptability. Human concepts are represented around central cases, and new instances are categorized according to their graded typicality relative to these prototypes. Here we show that such categorization of moral concepts is weakly preserved in current LLMs. Across 23 LLMs, models often failed to distinguish opposed moral categories or preserve fine-grained typicality within each category. These deficits persist across parameter sizes and alignment stages. We developed representational similarity optimization, which directly aligns the latent representations in LLMs with the categorization expressed in human moral judgements, without supervising generated responses. In matched experiments using the same 251,334 moral annotations, standard behavioral alignment learned the intended moral judgements at the response level while leaving the categorization structure largely unchanged and increasing vulnerability across adversarial evaluations. Reorganizing moral categorization produced more modest gains in explicit judgements but consistently improved adversarial robustness across model scales on diverse benchmarks and attack strategies. Our findings provide functional support for the view that prototype-based categorization contributes to behavioral adaptability. They also show that transferring this representational principle to LLMs yields generalizable safety under adversarial conditions.

A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.

As LLM-based human simulators are increasingly used for policy, evaluation, and training, they must faithfully reproduce real behavioral patterns. While prior work has examined behavioral fidelity in survey responses and dialogue, longer-horizon real-world activity remains largely unexplored. We introduce a framework for evaluating behavioral fidelity in long-horizon activity simulations across temporal granularities and levels of analysis. As a case study, we collect a 43-hour multi-camera dataset of in-the-wild office activity and compare trace-derived conditioning mechanisms: persona descriptors, few-shot exemplars, and statistical transition and time-of-day priors. We find that behavioral fidelity is not uniform across metrics: statistical priors bring activity and sequence distributions closest to real behavior, yet over-fragment routines and suppress within-person variability. These findings motivate a more holistic evaluation that spans multiple metrics, temporal granularities, and levels of analysis.

The same Persona behavior can be beneficial in one context but harmful in another, causing static Persona elicitation to perform inconsistently across tasks. We introduce the Persona Selection--Realization Framework, which models behavior generation through a latent Persona state and decomposes it into Persona Selection and Persona Realization. The discrepancies between static Persona elicitation and an ideal Persona policy in these two components define the Selection Gap and Realization Gap, respectively. Building on this framework, we propose R$^2$A, a two-stage approach for learning Persona policies. Persona Representation Learning uses structured Who--How--What presentations to encode the target Persona's objective, conditional behavioral principles, and trajectory-level manifestations. Persona Runtime Alignment then removes the explicit Persona specification and jointly calibrates behavior selection and trajectory realization using task feedback. Across 12 evaluation settings covering the four principles of the Accountable-Professional Persona studied in this work, R$^2$A overall outperforms both the base model and static Persona elicitation. Ablation results further show that Persona Representation Learning is critical for preventing Runtime Alignment from producing behaviorally imbalanced policies and for achieving more stable Persona policy learning.

Hybrid-thinking multimodal large language models (MLLMs) allow a single model to alternate between deliberative thinking and latency-efficient non-thinking inference. Although these modes differ in reasoning budget, their delivered responses should satisfy the same user-facing standard. Correctness alone may not characterize this response quality; we therefore evaluate task accuracy and response-pattern failures as complementary outcomes. We study this gap through \textbf{response-pattern alignment}: whether thinking and non-thinking interfaces preserve acceptable final-response behavior. We introduce \textbf{PatternEval}, a failure-enriched diagnostic benchmark comprising 2,415 multimodal prompts spanning visual perception and grounding, structured image understanding, and multimodal knowledge reasoning. PatternEval tests four recurrent failures: chain-of-thought leakage, response repetition, logical contradiction, and performative reasoning. Response-pattern failures are widespread across models from different providers, with non-thinking inference exhibiting substantially higher failure rates and thereby creating systematic misalignment between thinking and non-thinking interfaces. Motivated by this diagnosis, we develop \textbf{PatternRM}, a response-level reward model, and \textbf{PatternRL}, which introduces pattern-specific penalties during reinforcement learning. Experiments on Qwen3-VL-4B and Qwen3-VL-8B show that incorporating pattern-specific penalties into reinforcement learning can mitigate cross-mode misalignment while incurring a marginal task performance trade-off. Together, PatternEval and PatternRL provide an evaluation-and-training framework for aligning user-visible response patterns across hybrid-thinking interfaces.

Traditional offline recommendation evaluation relies heavily on complex, manually maintained feature pipelines that are difficult to scale. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative by predicting user engagement directly from raw text logs, empirical analysis in this study identifies a critical failure mode termed bidirectional rationalization. In a zero-shot setting, LLMs are found to convincingly argue for both positive and negative user engagement outcomes on the exact same item with identical evidence, highlighting the unreliability of off-the-shelf LLMs in predicting user engagement. To resolve this, we develop and apply a sequential behavioral alignment framework pairing fine-tuning with preference optimization over paired correct and counterfactual rationales. Evaluated on real-world homepage interaction logs, this aligned reasoning approach achieves a 32.19% lift in Macro-F1 score over the zero-shot baseline and matches the production feature-engineered baseline. The results demonstrate that behavioral alignment mitigates bidirectional rationalization while delivering human-interpretable reasoning traces without manual pipeline overhead.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act in interactive settings where their behavioral styles affect user experience, safety, and downstream decision making. Existing LLM personality studies largely rely on self-report questionnaires administered in first-person settings, making the resulting profiles sensitive to surface elicitation choices and poorly grounded in concrete model behavior. In this work, we introduce a situated behavioral-data (B-data) framework for studying and controlling LLM behavioral personality. We construct 3,200 contrastive behavioral scenarios spanning 20 behavioral patterns and four prompt registers, grounded in validated psychometric facets such as BFI-2, DOSPERT, and HEXACO. Using this framework, we find that LLMs exhibit stable and model-specific behavioral profiles, while also revealing register-dependent shifts across first-person decisions, advice-giving, and task execution. We then show that these behavioral patterns can be controlled through Behavioral Mode Axes (BMAs), activation-space directions derived from contrastive behavioral traces. Compared with response-derived BMAs, which are more prone to trait drift, thought-derived BMAs more faithfully capture the intended behavioral mechanism and provide cleaner control over situated behavioral styles. Our results suggest that LLM personality-like tendencies are better understood not as abstract self-report traits, but as measurable and controllable behavioral modes grounded in concrete interaction contexts. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/lhz191/LLM-Behavioral-Personality.

Large Language Models have enabled increasingly capable autonomous agents, yet personalization remains critical for making such agents practically useful. Recent benchmarks have begun evaluating personalization in agents, but they largely rely on static preference snapshots, fixed interaction logs, or question answering over predefined user profiles. Such designs fail to capture the complexity of evolving user preferences and neglect preference-conditioned task execution-a discrepancy we term as the knowledge-to-action gap. To address this challenge, we introduce IBA-Bench, a benchmark for implicit behavioral alignment constructed from longitudinal interaction histories that contain noise, implicit cues, and temporal inconsistencies. Unlike prior work, IBA-Bench evaluates whether an agent can execute tasks while satisfying implicit user constraints inferred from historical interactions. We further propose IBA-Agent, an agent framework that reconciles conflicting priorities through broad retrieval and trajectory-level alignment. Experiment results on IBA-Bench show that effective personalization remains a significant challenge for state-of-the-art LLM agents, and the proposed IBA-Agent substantially improves behavioral alignment in complex scenarios across nine application domains.

Agent evaluation relies almost entirely on outcome metrics such as success rate, which capture whether an agent succeeds but not how consistently it behaves. We argue that behavioral consistency across tasks is a distinct and measurable property, and we introduce the Behavioral Consistency Metric (BCM) to quantify it. BCM trains a model to predict task success from behavioral features of agent execution traces, derives a per-trajectory feature-attribution vector, and measures the mean pairwise similarity of these vectors within an agent system. Across roughly 9,000 trajectories from six language model agents on software engineering tasks, our central finding is that cross-task and within-task consistency are distinct axes that can diverge: some systems are locally reproducible, behaving similarly on repeated attempts at one task, yet globally fragmented, with no stable strategy across different tasks, while others are consistent at both scales. Prior work measures only same-task reproducibility and so cannot observe this separation. We further find that consistency is not reducible to success rate, since systems with comparable success can differ sharply in consistency, and that the frontier-versus-open-source consistency gap persists under a within-task control that holds task difficulty constant. We position BCM as a process-level reliability signal that complements outcome metrics, and we are explicit about the conditions under which it is meaningful.

Human personality theories characterize traits not as isolated attributes captured by a single score, but as stable individual tendencies expressed through the interplay among persons, situations, and behaviors. Existing studies of personality-related behavior in LLMs have primarily focused on outputs elicited under personality conditioning, characterizing observable trait-related expressions while lacking mechanistic evidence for the existence of internal personality-related representations, their cross-situational expression, and how these representations shape specific behaviors. Building on Funder's personality triad framework, we adapt its three components for LLM analysis: Person as personality-related internal representations, Situation as contexts that afford trait-relevant responses, and Behavior as response patterns on broader social tasks. We introduce a framework for discovering, controlling, and validating trait-like representations in LLMs. First, using contrastive behavior pairs grounded in shared situations, we identify sparse internal features associated with opposing poles of personality traits through SAE decomposition. We validate their trait relevance through effects on behavior to situation, token-level activation patterns, and robustness to paraphrasing. Second, feature-level interventions induce bidirectional trait-related shifts across a separate, diverse set of situations while preserving response validity, demonstrating consistent expression across contexts. Third, applying the same interventions to social intelligence tasks reveals behavioral changes with benefit-tradeoff patterns consistent with findings from human personality research, providing behavioral-level validation beyond personality scores. Our findings provide evidence that LLMs contain controllable trait-like representations linking internal states, situational expression, and behavioral outcomes.

Activation steering modifies a language model by adding a learned direction to its hidden activations, enabling targeted behavioral changes without retraining. While effective, steering often produces unintended side effects on other behaviors, making it difficult to deploy safely. We therefore ask: can these side effects be forecasted before steering is applied? We answer this question by constructing a cross-effect matrix over a taxonomy of 67 behaviors across three open-weight language models. We find that side effects are common, structured, and often asymmetric, revealing interactions that cannot be explained by existing similarity-based heuristics. Despite this complexity, we show that side effects are largely predictable before steering is performed. Their magnitude depends primarily on the target behavior, while their direction can be forecasted from the model's unsteered representations with substantially higher accuracy than simple baselines. Our results demonstrate that activation steering has systematic and forecastable side effects, enabling proactive safety auditing and more informed deployment of steering interventions.

Persona prompting is widely used to steer LLM agent behavior, yet the narrative framing of a task can matter more than the assigned persona. We isolate this effect through structural isomorphism, constructing three text-based investigation games that share the same action space, stage progression, and resource constraints while varying only task narrative: disease investigation, IT troubleshooting, and murder mystery. Across 1,890 sessions spanning 3 models and 10 personas, we identify narrative priors: systematic action tendencies activated by a task's story framing, independent of its decision structure. Narrative priors explain 5-31x more behavioral variance than persona, are consistent across model architectures, and in two of three domains are negatively associated with task success. Persona effects that do transfer across narratives arise from behavioral anchors, persona descriptions whose language maps directly onto shared actions. Causal interventions confirm this: removing anchor words from a high-transfer persona reduces cross-narrative consistency by 95%. Our framework also generalizes to a held-out fourth narrative and yields a persona-selection method that improves cross-narrative transfer. These results suggest that LLM behavior that survives narrative changes should be grounded in concrete actions rather than abstract descriptions.

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.

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.

Backdoor attacks pose a serious threat to large language models (LLMs) by causing otherwise benign systems to produce attacker-specified malicious behavior when a hidden trigger is present. In this work, we study post hoc detoxification of backdoored LLMs in a practical setting where the defender has access to the poisoned model but does not wish to retrain the full network from scratch. We propose a mechanistically guided weight-space repair framework that first localizes modules involved in propagating trigger-induced behavior using activation patching and Fisher/K-FAC curvature analysis, and then applies targeted low-rank repair to only the most influential modules. We evaluate the method on poisoned variants of \texttt{Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct} with triggers inserted at the beginning, middle, and end of otherwise benign prompts. Results show that the proposed approach substantially suppresses trigger-conditioned malicious responses while preserving benign model behavior. These findings suggest that backdoor removal in LLMs can be formulated as a localized structural repair problem rather than only a broad behavioral alignment problem.

While existing data attribution methods can identify which training examples build specific mechanistic circuits, they cannot explain how training data shapes the high-level behavioral decisions a model learns to make. To bridge this gap, we introduce Symbolic Mechanistic Data Attribution (SMDA), a framework that attributes training pairs to the interpretable symbolic policies governing model behavior. SMDA fits a closed-form Ridge regression over sparse autoencoder (SAE) features to model a target behavior, then analytically decomposes how each supervised fine-tuning example shifts that policy through feature-activation Delta_X and output-probability Delta_Y pathways. We distill a symbolic policy for refusal behavior in Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and analyze 200 SFT training pairs. Our analysis reveals that (1) the symbolic policy's coefficients expose systematic gaps in the base model's safety behavior for categories like religious stereotyping; (2) per-feature Delta_X/Delta_Y decomposition can mechanistically explain why harmful and harmless pairs exert qualitatively different influences on certain features; and (3) individual training pairs routinely exhibit cross-feature interference, allowing SMDA to identify training pairs whose dominant effect falls on unintended features. These results demonstrate that combining mechanistic interpretability with data attribution yields a diagnostic tool that is both more fine-grained than black-box influence functions and more scalable than manual circuit analysis.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous decision makers, yet the behavioral mapping they exhibit can vary substantially across decision environments that are payoff-equivalent by construction-environments that share identical payoff-relevant structure but differ in surface presentation. This sensitivity renders suite-based evaluation fragile and raises a fundamental question of behavioral portability: how well does a behavioral mapping learned in one decision environment informative on another that preserves the same underlying incentive structure? We introduce a formal framework to measure this property. Our protocol fits an interpretable behavioral model on data pooled from a set of source environments and evaluates its out-of-sample predictive performance in a held-out target environment, benchmarking against an oracle trained directly on target data. Portability is quantified via a loss-agnostic measure that delivers worst-case bounds on the performance of the induced prediction-action mapping in the target environment. In controlled experiments spanning seven canonical economic decision problems, we document substantial and systematic portability losses, suggesting that behavioral characterizations of LLMs obtained in one decision environment cannot be assumed to transfer reliably to structurally equivalent alternatives.

Real-world decision-making often requires optimizing multiple competing objectives simultaneously. In reinforcement learning (RL), this is typically addressed by combining reward signals into a single scalar objective via a scalarization function, which can be fragile: small changes in the weights can induce drastically different policies. Multi-objective reinforcement learning (MORL) instead produces sets of policies that explicitly represent trade-offs between objectives. However, these policies are typically presented to the decision maker only through their value vectors, which can obscure substantial behavioral variation: policies that induce distinct trajectories may appear indistinguishable when evaluated solely by expected returns. We propose an exploratory diagnostic workflow that automatically highlights behavioral variation along the Pareto front that objective values alone do not reveal, providing both quantitative and visual tools to support policy inspection. We validate our approach on simple grid examples and scale it to continuous control benchmarks, demonstrating that it remains effective as problem complexity increases.

Current AI-driven game development has made substantial progress in asset generation, gameplay design, and web-based game coding, yet project-level code engineering on professional game engines remains largely unexplored due to the absence of large-scale datasets and deterministic evaluation methods. We present JamSet and JamBench, the first project-level game code framework dataset and benchmark built on a professional game engine. Our key insight is that Game Jam competitions, community events where developers build complete games under tight time constraints, yield thousands of open-source projects suitable for this purpose. Building on the Godot engine's text-based format and headless execution mode, we design a deterministic verification pipeline from file integrity to runtime behavior collection, distilling 8,133 verified projects from over 240,000 repositories. Of these, 300 manually verified projects form JamBench; the rest constitute JamSet. JamBench defines theme-driven generation and code completion tasks, evaluated through a pipeline combining compilation pass rates, Structural Completeness Score (SCS), and Behavioral Alignment Score (BAS). Evaluation of 9 frontier models reveals a capability cliff as project scale increases, with runtime pass rates dropping from 80.4% on small projects to 5.7% on large ones (Task2a). Code Agents improve compilation rates yet yield no gains in runtime behavioral quality, indicating that the bottleneck lies in architectural design rather than syntactic correctness. Experiments validate JamSet as effective training data. All data and code are publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents that make consumption decisions on behalf of users. This shift raises fundamental questions for consumer theory, which has traditionally modeled humans as the primary decision-makers. In this paper, we introduce LLM Consumer Behavior Theory, a new field of study concerned with analyzing consumer behavior in agentic markets. Drawing on classical and behavioral economics alongside recent advances in Natural Language Processing, we formalize how human preferences are reflected and acted upon by LLM-based agents, and how agent-level decisions aggregate into market demand. We unify previously fragmented literature on LLM decision-making, human behavior simulation, and preference elicitation under a common economic lens, highlighting where assumptions, such as rationality and heterogeneity, may fail in agentic markets. Rather than providing empirical validation, this paper outlines the scope of LLM consumer behavior and identifies open research questions related to alignment, preference representation, and market dynamics.

Interventions designed to modify a particular behavior in LLMs, such as refusal or sycophancy, often produce unintended changes in other behaviors. This lack of targeted control makes it difficult to design and implement reliable safety controls. To understand these side-effects, we introduce a diagnostic framework for analyzing interacting behaviors in LLMs. We model behaviors as low-rank subspaces in activation space, and study how interventions influence across behaviors. Across multiple instruction-tuned models (7B-70B) and across refusal, jailbreak, and sycophancy settings, we find that different behaviors share internal representations, and intervening on one behavior alters others in asymmetric ways. Some behaviors act as upstream control points whose interventions propagate broadly across other behaviors, while others remain more isolated. We relate these effects to two geometric quantities: (i) the overlap between behavior subspaces, measured as the average squared cosine of principal angles, and (ii) the angle between each behavior subspace and the decision subspace (capturing the model's final decision e.g., refuse vs. comply). Empirically, intervention effects on other behaviors tend to be larger for behavior pairs with higher subspace overlap, and for source behaviors whose subspaces lie closer (smaller angle) to the decision subspace. These findings highlight a challenge for targeted behavior control: behaviors are difficult to modify independently, as interventions can propagate through shared representations and asymmetric interactions.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as human simulators for interactive evaluation and social simulation. Yet helpfulness-driven post-training pulls them toward a homogeneous, overly agreeable assistant register, creating a behavioral Sim2Real gap. We present OdysSim, the largest open systematic investigation of behavioral foundation models, i.e., models trained to simulate human behavior at scale. We propose SOUL, a taxonomy of five capability axes (CONV, SS, COG, ROLE, EVAL) that unifies 62 datasets and 23 benchmark tasks under one framework. Specifically, we curate the OdysSim corpus (21.4M interactions, 10B tokens, retrofitted with back-generated social contexts), construct the SOUL-Index benchmark, and develop an end-to-end training recipe combining midtraining, task-specific RL, and expert distillation. The resulting open 8B OSim model ranks first or tied-first on 8 of 23 tasks, outperforming any individual frontier model by this count, with the strongest gains on conversational and social tasks. Its outputs are also more human-like in length, formatting, and word choice, and it transfers zero-shot to out-of-distribution user simulation on $τ$-bench, nearly matching real users on reaction alignment (93.2 vs. 93.5). We further show that LLM-as-judge RL induces reward-hacking patterns, and that our detectors can mitigate them during post-training. Together, our findings suggest that behavioral foundation models require rethinking the LLM training paradigm. We release all artifacts to support future research.

Anticipating LLM behavioral tendencies from low-cost psychometric probes is critical for safe deployment, but only if self-reports (SR) reliably predict behavior. Recent work documented substantial SR-behavior dissociation in LLMs, but relied on broad personality traits (Big 5) that predict specific behaviors weakly, even in humans. Furthermore, the isolation of conversational sessions combined with weak context matching left open whether LLMs truly lack coherence or whether the conditions needed to detect such coherence were not met. We contrast Big 5 with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which measures intention targeted to a specific behavior and predicts human behavior substantially better than broad traits. We run experiments across four behavioral tasks and 11 frontier LLMs, while also varying session context and identity induction. We find that SR-behavior coherence exists but is selective. 1) Within a shared conversation, the Theory of Planned Behavior reaches human-level coherence; Big 5 does not. 2) Across separate conversations, coherence survives only for behaviors anchored outside the immediate prompt, such as implicit bias shaped by training, and collapses when behavior is strongly primed by context, as with sycophancy. 3) Persona prompting makes self-reports more consistent across conversations, but does not bring behavior into alignment. These findings suggest that coarse personality frameworks, such as Big 5 may not be the best tools for testing deployment behavior. More task- and behavior-specific instruments are needed, and even these must be evaluated across tasks and contexts.

Safe social navigation requires robots to distinguish people from ordinary obstacles and to react before danger becomes imminent. We show that pretrained Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models already encode pedestrian-object distinctions and future collision signals in their internal representations, but behavior cloning fails to translate these signals into socially appropriate actions. To address this mismatch, we propose SALSA, a two-stage annotation-free post-training framework: (1) social behavioral alignment bridges intermediate-layer social features to the action head and trains on counterfactual human-object scene pairs to break visual saliency shortcuts; (2) temporal safety alignment provides automatically generated future-risk supervision to enable anticipatory collision avoidance. On SCAND and real-world deployment, SALSA reduces near-collisions by 86.4% and improves social counterfactual accuracy from 53% to 93%, demonstrating that safer social navigation can be achieved by teaching VLA policies to act on representations they already possess. These results show that pretrained VLA policies can be adapted for safer social navigation by better aligning their latent representations with action generation.

Ensuring that agent behaviours are aligned with human moral values inevitably raises the problem of how to account for the plurality of moral perspectives that societies -- and even individuals -- typically adopt. Work on moral uncertainty proposes mechanisms to fairly and democratically aggregate evaluations of actions across different moral theories. However, this paper argues that one needs to account for contextual factors when aggregating moral evaluations. For example, consequentialist perspectives assume an ability to accurately determine how an agent's actions change the world; an assumption that often does not hold in real world settings. We, therefore, formalise agent decision making under moral uncertainty, while also accounting for these kinds of contextual factors. We thereby show that a seemingly commonsensical property -- the weak Pareto principle -- is violated. We argue that this apparent problem is, in fact, a variation of Simpson's paradox, and hence reveals the limitations of aggregation mechanisms that ignore the impact of contextual factors.

LLMs can appear cautious in risk decision-making tasks, yet cautious-looking outputs do not necessarily indicate alignment with human decision-making mechanisms. We investigate this distinction using the St. Petersburg game as a controlled testbed, a classical paradox in which the expected payoff is infinite, yet humans typically report low, finite willingness to pay. We evaluate 28 LLMs with a structured prompt suite that includes the original game; controlled decision variants that perturb truncation, repeated play, numeric endowment, and occupational identity; a human-perspective prompt that asks models to reason as human decision makers; and paired comparisons between base models and their instruction-tuned counterparts. In the original game, most models generate finite bids, creating the appearance of human-like risk behavior. However, this outcome-level resemblance masks substantial mechanism-level differences. The controlled variants reveal that rather than maintaining human-like behavior seen in the original game, models often shift to conditionally and computationally rational behavior. Human-cue prompting and instruction tuning often lower bids and reduce some visible pathologies, but most mechanism-level response patterns remain largely unchanged. These findings show that behavioral alignment in risk decision-making can be surface-level: LLMs may produce human-like risk decisions without exhibiting human-consistent mechanisms. High-stakes evaluations of LLM decision-making should therefore move beyond outcome similarity and examine whether the alignment is supported by mechanism-level consistency.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in sustainability-related decision support, reporting, and public communication, yet little systematic evidence exists on the environmental attitudes embedded in their outputs. This paper develops a benchmark for evaluating environmental cognition, affect, and behavioural recommendations in LLMs and applies it to 31 widely used proprietary and open-weight models. Drawing on questions from established environmental awareness surveys and additional sustainability-related behavioural measures, we compare LLM responses 1) among models and 2) between models and human survey benchmarks from Germany. We assess their robustness across prompting conditions. We find that many LLMs align more closely with environmentally progressive attitudes than the average survey respondent, exhibiting higher levels of environmental affect and cognition and recommending behaviours associated with substantial potential CO2 reductions. At the same time, we observe no systematic relationship between sustainability-oriented responses and model origin, size, or release context. However, models exhibit contextual sensitivity, controlled by persona-based prompting and show sycophantic shifts mirroring user-specified ideological positions, which raises concerns about steerability and normative reliability in real-world deployments. Our findings provide a reusable evaluation framework for assessing sustainability-related value alignment in LLMs and highlight the importance of governance, transparency, and critical oversight as AI systems become increasingly embedded in sustainability transformations and public decision-making.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse domains, yet personalizing their outputs to individual users remains an open challenge. Existing approaches predominantly adopt a flat behavioral paradigm, aggregating user behaviors without an explicit account of how they are organized into deeper behavioral structures. In this work, we draw on Pierre Bourdieu's Theory of Practice to propose PHF (Practice-Habitus-Field), a sociologically grounded framework that reconceptualizes LLM personalization through three hierarchical levels: individual behaviors as practices, their temporal accumulation into stable dispositions as habitus, and shared regularities across similar users as fields. We instantiate PHF through $\mathrm{PHF}_{\text{Compass}}$, a lightweight and model-agnostic implementation based on a frozen LLM. Experiments on the Language Model Personalization (LaMP) benchmark demonstrate consistent improvements across diverse tasks, while further analyses validate the interpretability and extensibility of the learned behavioral structures.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can convincingly simulate personas in explicit self-reports, they often deviate in implicit behavioral decisions, revealing a substantial Knowledge-Decision Gap ($G_{\mathrm{KD}}$). Existing benchmarks struggle to measure this discrepancy due to limited construct validity, multidimensional entanglement, and distributional biases in LLM-based evaluation. To address these issues, we propose ActTraitBench, a human-grounded evaluation framework for measuring personality consistency in LLMs. Grounded in empirical human data, ActTraitBench establishes one-to-one mappings between psychometric facets and behavioral paradigms and applies Distributional Calibration via Quantile Mapping to reduce distributional mismatch between LLM-judge scores and human responses. Experiments on 14 mainstream LLMs reveal substantial knowledge-decision gaps and show that assigned personas are reflected more consistently in self-reports than in behavioral decisions for most evaluated models. To mitigate this gap, we further introduce the Chain of Cognitive Alignment (CoCA), an inference-time intervention that reduces $G_{\mathrm{KD}}$ for 12 of the 13 models with paired results. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/Selina233/ActTraitBench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making settings such as legal reasoning, where consistency under factually equivalent inputs is critical. However, we find that fact-preserved but differently framed inputs can significantly destabilize LLM decisions. To systematically investigate this problem, we introduce Fragile, a large-scale benchmark that isolates fact-preserving semantic framing across three controlled dimensions: value-tinted narration, temporal slice, and narrative vividness. Our experiments reveal a high susceptibility of LLMs to framing, with an average decision flip rate of 28.6%. We find that simple prior prompt-level and activation-level interventions not only fail to suppress framing sensitivity but actively amplify it. We therefore propose Valign, a representation-level method that explicitly targets these framing dimensions by anchoring decisions to a stable value prior, steering hidden states toward the model's value-consistent direction, and projecting out temporal-vividness-sensitive directions from the model's hidden states. Valign consistently reduces framing-induced decision flips, demonstrating that robust mitigation requires directly targeting the internal pathways in which framing operates.

Benchmarking is mature where answers are verifiable -- math, code, reasoning -- but the fastest-growing uses of LLMs are subjective and human-facing: companionship, emotional support, counseling. There the default validity test, correlating a metric to human judgment, has no stable anchor: inter-rater agreement is low, structured by annotator identity, barely reproducible, and length-biased. So we cannot answer the question that matters: does capability that scales on objective benchmarks transfer to subjective behavior, and would our instruments even tell us if it did not? We build an instrument for this regime and report what it reveals at the frontier. We contribute, first, a self-evolving instrument that selects and then authors its own behavioral dimensions under a multiplicative anti-gaming fitness, self-halting when it stops improving; second, a trust-by-construction paradigm that earns belief through three certificates established without a human gold standard, where human raters saturate (rho ~ 0.45); and third, the finding it makes visible -- capability transfer is dissociable. Across 49 models, 8 families, and 24 months, subjective behaviors are where objective-benchmark scaling fails to carry over: the sharpest case, advice-restraint (knowing when not to give advice), is the frontier's universal-lowest dimension, and at gpt-4.1->gpt-5 it ran backwards while the aggregate score hid it -- a regression one instruction recovers. Warm restraint is moved by model generation, not by raw scale, MoE width, inference budget, or reasoning mode; the open-weight Pareto frontier matches closed flagships at ~10-80x lower per-call cost; and four judge families replicate the rubric on held-out human ESConv conversations. Data, code, the locked rubric, and judge prompts will be released upon publication.

Alignment faking (AF) refers to a model strategically complying with a training objective to avoid behavioural modification while preserving its deployment preferences. Understanding when and why AF arises matters as models grow better at distinguishing training from deployment. Prior work finds AF fragile, prompt-sensitive, and model-dependent, leaving its underlying drivers unclear. We study AF in a controlled, minimal setup that isolates its core components, and observe it across a wider range of models than previously reported, including small-scale models. We identify three separable drivers -- values, goal guarding, and sycophancy -- and show via targeted prompt ablations and activation steering that each independently modulates AF behaviour. Our results indicate AF is more widespread than previously reported and that its occurrence is predictable from situational cues and measurable model tendencies such as baseline sycophancy and stated values. The decomposition suggests concrete directions for detecting and mitigating AF in future models.

Large language models are increasingly used as behavioral simulators, but it remains unclear when their outputs reflect human-like cognitive mechanisms rather than prompt-sensitive surface patterns. We study this question through the realization effect, a well-characterized finding in behavioral economics in which risk-taking differs systematically after paper versus realized gains and losses. We evaluate LLM behavior at three levels: prompt-only behavioral sensitivity, linear readout of internal representations, and causal control via activation steering. Prompt-only results show systematic condition sensitivity, but the directional pattern does not reproduce human realization-effect predictions. Gemma's residual stream contains a linearly decodable realization-status signal at layer 18 that generalizes to held-out prompts. Steering along this direction does not, however, reliably shift downstream risk choices, a null result that holds across positive scales and in a negative sign-symmetry run. Behavioral sensitivity, latent readout, and causal control are three distinct properties that do not automatically co-occur, and successful latent readout is insufficient evidence that a model behaviorally relies on a representation during downstream decision-making.

Cross-domain offline reinforcement learning (RL) aims to learn a policy in the target domain with a limited target domain dataset and a source domain dataset that exhibits a dynamics shift. Training directly on the original source dataset typically leads to performance collapse. Recent studies perform data filtering from the perspective of dynamics alignment or value alignment to enable efficient policy transfer. However, these studies are typically validated on single-domain or single-behavior-policy source datasets. In this work, we explore a more general heterogeneous cross-domain offline RL setting, where the source datasets may be collected from multiple source domains by diverse behavior policies. We first uncover a critical yet overlooked issue in this setting: value misassignment. Empirically and theoretically, we demonstrate that value misassignment can undermine value alignment, mislead data filtering toward selecting suboptimal samples, and loosen the suboptimality gap, thereby degrading the agent's performance. To address this issue, we propose V2A, which integrates dynamics alignment, value alignment, and value assignment. V2A first employs temporally-consistent modality representation learning to extract dynamics modalities from the source dataset, followed by modality-aware advantage learning to rectify value alignment. Finally, it adopts a data filtering paradigm to selectively share source data for policy learning. Empirical results show that V2A significantly outperforms strong baseline methods under general heterogeneous cross-domain offline RL settings.

We study behavioral alignment and representation dynamics of large language model (LLM) agents in financial decision environments. TradeArena, an auditable trading-agent testbed with risk reports, execution simulation, memory, and replayable trajectories, lets us analyze how rationales, positions, and interventions evolve under market stress. Code and data artifacts are available through the \href{https://github.com/weich97/TradeArena.git}{TradeArena repository}. We find pre-failure signatures: planning embeddings drift from normal centroids, fused plan-risk representations separate normal from pre-drawdown states, and local manifolds exhibit effective-rank contraction. Across 80 rolling failure anchors and eight LLM trajectories, this pattern persists across hash, LSA, Transformer, and white-box hidden-state probes. Stress tests with CoT-free target weights, lexical controls, OHLCV noise, and false audits show that rationale-level contraction can vanish without rationales, while intent-space and fused signatures remain informative. Structured risk feedback can act as an external alignment signal without fine-tuning, but not as a universal performance enhancer: true audit feedback improves calibration for some models, returns for others, and exposes cases where placebo or hidden feedback has higher short-horizon return but weaker alignment diagnostics. A 51-stock intraday experiment reveals a correlation blind spot: LLM rationales justify exposure to coupled assets that the risk layer clips. Finally, a financial-audit task suite shifts comparison from ``which model trades best'' to whether models can audit trajectories, respect execution boundaries, reproduce artifacts, and avoid claim overreach. These results support a research claim, not a profitability claim: auditable risk feedback and representation trajectories reveal when LLM financial reasoning is aligning, drifting, or failing.

Wide applications of LLM-based agents require strong alignment with human social values. However, current works still exhibit deficiencies in self-cognition and dilemma decision, as well as self-emotions. To remedy this, we propose a novel value-based framework that employs GraphRAG to convert principles into value-based instructions and steer the agent to behave as expected by retrieving the suitable instruction upon a specific conversation context. To evaluate the ratio of expected behaviors, we define the expected behaviors from two famous theories, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Plutchik's Wheel of Emotion. By experimenting with our method on the benchmark of DAILYDILEMMAS, our method exhibits significant performance gains compared to prompt-based baselines, including ECoT, Plan-and-Solve, and Metacognitive prompting. Our method provides a basis for the emergence of self-emotion in AI systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated based on their stated values, yet these do not reliably translate into their actions, a discrepancy termed "value-action gap." In this work, we argue that this gap persists even under explicit reasoning, revealing a deeper failure mode we call "Pseudo-Deliberation": the appearance of principled reasoning without corresponding behavioral alignment. To study this systematically, we introduce VALDI, a framework for measuring alignment between stated values and generated dialogue. VALDI includes 4,941 human-centered scenarios across five domains, three tasks that elicit value articulation, reasoning, and action, and five metrics for quantifying value adherence. Across both proprietary and open-source LLMs, we observe consistent misalignment between expressed values and downstream dialogues. To investigate intervention strategies, we propose VIVALDI, a multi-agent value auditor that intervenes at different stages of generation.

It is becoming increasingly necessary to have monitors check for harmful behaviors during language model interactions, but text-only monitoring has not been sufficient. This is because models sometimes exhibit strategic deception and sandbagging, changing their behavior during evaluation. This motivates the use of white-box monitors like linear probes, which can read the model internals directly. Currently, such probes can fail under distribution shift, limiting their usefulness in real settings. We study whether there exists a low-dimensional subspace of the model internals that captures harmful behaviors more robustly, while leaving out spuriously correlative features. Inspired by the Assistant Axis and Persona Selection Model, we construct persona axes for deception and sycophancy using contrastive persona prompts. The first principal components, obtained by unsupervised PCA of the persona-specific vectors, cleanly separate harmful and harmless personas. Across 10 evaluation datasets, we show that persona-derived directions transfer non-trivially and probes trained on persona-PC projections generalize better than probes trained on raw activations. We also find that a unified axis consisting of multiple harmful and harmless behaviors improves generalization across behaviors and datasets. Overall, persona vectors provide a useful inductive bias for building more transferable behavior probes.

Conversational Large Language Models are post-trained on language that expresses specific behavioural traits, such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and empathy, and values, such as helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. This is done to increase utility, ensure safety, and improve the experience of the people interacting with the model. However, values are complex and inter-related -- inducing one could modify behaviour on another. Further, inducing certain values can make models more addictive or sycophantic through language used in the generations, with a potential detrimental effect on the user. We investigate these and other unintended effects of value induction into models. We fine-tune models using curated value subsets of existing preference datasets, measuring the impact of value induction on expression of other values, model safety, anthropomorphic language, and various QA benchmarks. We find that (i) inducing values leads to expression of other related, and sometimes contrastive values, (ii) inducing positive values increases safety, and (iii) all values increase anthropomorphic language use, making models more validating and sycophantic.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into interactive agents, understanding their behavioral alignment within human social dynamics becomes essential. While behavioral game theory offers a framework to study these interactions, previous work has predominantly relied on outcome-based metrics such as average scores. This focus overlooks the mechanisms that facilitate sustainable cooperation, as identical scores can be derived from vastly different strategies. To bridge this gap, we introduce SODE (Social Dynamics Evaluation), a framework that evaluates LLM agents across three evolutionary dimensions: Direct Reciprocity for strategy adaptation, Indirect Reciprocity for reputation sensitivity, and Group Dynamics for cooperative resilience. Applying SODE reveals systematic divergences: instruction-tuned models often exhibit "passive compliance" that renders them vulnerable to exploitation, while reasoning models prioritize short-horizon optimization, destabilizing long-term cooperation. Notably, we demonstrate that a "long-horizon framing" can unlock reciprocal capabilities in reasoning models. Thus, SODE offers a systematic, mechanism-grounded benchmark for aligning AI agents with complex human social dynamics.

Human daily behavior unfolds as complex sequences shaped by intentions, preferences, and context. Effectively modeling these behaviors is crucial for intelligent systems such as personal assistants and recommendation engines. While recent advances in deep learning and behavior pre-training have improved behavior prediction, key challenges remain--particularly in handling long-tail behaviors, enhancing interpretability, and supporting multiple tasks within a unified framework. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising direction due to their semantic richness, strong interpretability, and generative capabilities. However, the structural and modal differences between behavioral data and natural language limit the direct applicability of LLMs. To address this gap, we propose Behavior Understanding Alignment (BUA), a novel framework that integrates LLMs into human behavior modeling through a structured curriculum learning process. BUA employs sequence embeddings from pretrained behavior models as alignment anchors and guides the LLM through a three-stage curriculum, while a multi-round dialogue setting introduces prediction and generation capabilities. Experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate that BUA significantly outperforms existing methods in both tasks, highlighting its effectiveness and flexibility in applying LLMs to complex human behavior modeling.

Motivated by loss of control risks from misaligned AI systems, we develop and apply methods for measuring language models' propensity for unsanctioned behaviour. We contribute three methodological improvements: analysing effects of changes to environmental factors on behaviour, quantifying effect sizes via Bayesian generalised linear models, and taking explicit measures against circular analysis. We apply the methodology to measure the effects of 12 environmental factors (6 strategic in nature, 6 non-strategic) and thus the extent to which behaviour is explained by strategic aspects of the environment, a question relevant to risks from misalignment. Across 23 language models and 11 evaluation environments, we find approximately equal contributions from strategic and non-strategic factors for explaining behaviour, do not find strategic factors becoming more or less influential as capabilities improve, and find some evidence for a trend for increased sensitivity to goal conflicts. Finally, we highlight a key direction for future propensity research: the development of theoretical frameworks and cognitive models of AI decision-making into empirically testable forms.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are emerging as promising socio-collaborative companions for emotional and cognitive support. However, existing systems frequently suffer from persona collapse, where agents revert to generic, homogenized assistant behaviors, and social sycophancy, where agents produce redundant, non-constructive dialogue. We propose MASCOT, a multi-agent framework for multi-perspective socio-collaborative companions. MASCOT introduces a novel bi-level optimization strategy to harmonize individual and collective behaviors: 1) Persona-Aware Behavioral Alignment, an RLAIF-driven pipeline that finetunes individual agents for agent-specific identities; and 2) Collaborative Dialogue Optimization, a group-level adaptation process that promotes complementary, diverse, and productive discourse. We evaluate MASCOT using human-grounded contexts drawn across both in-domain and out-of-domain (OOD) settings against state-of-the-art baselines. MASCOT improves persona consistency by up to +14.1 and social contribution by up to +10.6. A broad evaluation suite, including human evaluation, multiple LLM judges, three-way comparisons, and automatic metrics, further shows that MASCOT produces more role-consistent and less redundant multi-agent dialogue.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in business, economics, and the social sciences, offering a low-cost complement to laboratory experiments, field studies, and surveys. This paper evaluates how well LLMs replicate human behavior in operations management. Using nine published behavioral-operations experiments, we assess LLM performance along two dimensions: whether LLM-generated data reproduce the original hypothesis-test outcomes, and whether their full response distributions align with human data, measured by Wasserstein distance. We find that LLMs often replicate hypothesis-level effects, suggesting that they can capture salient decision biases and behavioral regularities. However, their response distributions frequently diverge from human data, even for strong proprietary models, with dispersion mismatch playing an important role. We also examine two lightweight mitigation strategies: chain-of-thought prompting and hyperparameter tuning. Both can reduce distributional misalignment, and appropriate tuning can sometimes allow smaller or open-source models to match or outperform larger proprietary systems.