Human Behavior Modeling
Latest papers
27 papers6 papers in the last four weeks, against 1 the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly incorporated into agent-based models (ABMs) on the premise that richer, context-sensitive human behavior can improve empirical fidelity. However, LLM-supported ABMs introduce an open-ended design space in which subtle modeling and configuration choices, such as prompt design and environment coupling, can substantially alter outcomes. Developing LLM-supported ABMs to simulate human collective behavior therefore requires navigating configuration sensitivity while identifying the limitations of the current model architecture. In this paper, we introduce the Model Capacity Frontier (MCF), a framework that characterizes the empirical performance attainable by a specified architecture across its admissible configurations. In multi-objective settings, this capacity is represented by an estimated Pareto frontier obtained through systematic configuration exploration. We demonstrate MCF in crowd simulation of university commencement events with approximately 12,000 agents, using empirical movement data on temporal occupancy, spatial distribution, and flow direction. We first characterize the capacity of a conventional crowd model and then evaluate successive LLM-supported architectural extensions. In the process, MCF reveals which dimensions of attainable performance expand and which remain limited, providing empirical targets for refinement and re-evaluation. Initial LLM integration improves flow direction but degrades temporal occupancy and spatial distribution; subsequent architectural refinement of the LLM layer improves temporal occupancy and recovers spatial performance, while retaining much of the earlier gain in flow direction. Our case study shows how MCF guides the systematic architectural development of LLM-supported ABMs in configuration-sensitive, open-ended design spaces.
Preservation and loss of algorithmic structure in experimental diffusion of joint-action norms
Everyday norms of social interaction - e.g. norms of sharing space, taking turns, or queuing - are essential to large societies, offering structured procedures for common interactions. However, it remains unclear how the underlying algorithms of these implicit joint plans evolve as they diffuse through populations. Here we show that this process of diffusion can select against complex algorithms in the earliest stages. We conducted a large-scale study of experimental diffusion of novel social norms among human participants, leveraging advances in program synthesis to characterize the procedures people developed in independent populations. Inherited procedures became structurally simplified and lost during interactions between participants who inherited different variants of joint-action norms; however, opportunities for interactive repair offset this pressure, preserving complex algorithms despite misalignment. These results demonstrate that interactive reasoning mediates selective pressures on structural complexity during cultural evolution of procedural norms.
Cross-Centaur: Modeling Individual Decision-Making Across Psychological Tasks with Language Models
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as computational models of human behavior. Recent models such as Centaur have advanced this goal by fine-tuning LLMs on trial-by-trial decisions from psychological experiments. However, existing large-scale behavioral datasets do not link the same participants across different tasks, so these models learn population-level regularities but are not trained to model individual-level regularities across tasks. We introduce Cross-Psych-101, a dataset of 591 participants and 261{,}551 valid decisions across 12 Bandit, Tradeoff, Structure, and Social tasks. We train Cross-Centaur to predict a participant's target-task actions from a target-task description and the source-task description paired with the same participant's source-task behavior. Cross-Centaur outperforms off-the-shelf LLMs and Centaur on held-out participants, both within and across tasks. Probing analyses suggest that its hidden states encode participant-level behavioral tendencies that transfer across tasks. These results highlight the potential of cross-task individual-level data for predicting human decision-making with language models. Cross-Pysch-101 is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/HikaruAsano/cross-psych-101.
Large language model-generated patterns for epidemiological modeling: a multi-benchmark evaluation framework
Representing individual-level behavioral heterogeneity is challenging in epidemiological modeling, particularly when empirical behavioral data are sparse. We assess the potential of large language model (LLM)-generated behavioral outputs in addressing this challenge, using hepatitis C virus-related behaviors among people who inject drugs as a case study. Correspondence with epidemiological patterns was evaluated using external benchmarks: literature-informed association directions, correlations from an agent-based model (ABM), and survey associations. Across three LLMs, unconditional directional recovery across 28 retained literature-informed associations was 46-68%, compared with 82-93% agreement when LLMs were directly asked to classify the same associations. Mean absolute differences from ABM and survey correlation patterns were 0.11-0.13 and 0.15-0.18, respectively. Together, these findings show partial alignment between LLM-generated behavioral relationships and epidemiological evidence, despite higher knowledge-probe agreement. More systematic evaluation is needed before incorporating LLM-generated behavioral outputs into epidemiological models that simulate transmission dynamics.
A small cognitive core explains human behavior at scale
Psychology has proposed many principles of cognition. Each, however, was developed in isolation, leaving their combined explanatory power unknown. We assembled a small set of established principles into one model, which we call COntextual Retrieval and Encoding (CORE). CORE consists of a hierarchy of episodic memories into which prediction errors are written and whose encoding, retrieval, and forgetting depend on context. Fitted jointly to 7,036,442 choices from 137 experiments, the model predicts human choices better than black-box models and reproduces 75% of reported behavioral effects when simulated. Moreover, its latent variables show classic signatures of Bayesian learning and event segmentation. Taken together, these findings suggest that a small cognitive core accounts for much of human behavior. They also open a path toward making psychology more than the sum of its parts, by building computational models on the entire experimental record.
MotiveMob: Motivation as Semantic Action for Closed-Loop Human Mobility Generation
Human mobility generation, an important task in urban research, synthesizes trajectory data for urban planning and transportation management. Human mobility can be characterized as a "why-where-when" decision process: people form an intention to move and then determine where and when the corresponding activity will take place. Trajectory generation under user-level and temporal distribution shifts may benefit from explicitly modeling this decision structure. However, many existing human mobility generation methods either represent behavioral intent at a coarse granularity, such as a daily plan or a trajectory-level description, or directly predict future locations without explicitly reasoning about a possible motivation for each movement step. We introduce MotiveMob, a motivation-driven autoregressive framework for human mobility generation that first forms a hypothesis about why the next movement may occur and then jointly generates where and when it may occur. At each step, a motivation predictor conditions on the current mobility state, a long-term behavioral report, and the mobility history to infer a plausible motivation or determine whether the trajectory should terminate. Given the hypothesized motivation, a state predictor grounds it in a candidate next location and arrival time. The candidate then undergoes speed-feasibility and repetition checks before being fed back for the next decision. We evaluate MotiveMob under distribution shifts involving unseen users and unseen temporal periods, including seasonal changes and the substantial behavioral disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Experiments show that MotiveMob consistently achieves better distributional fidelity than competitive pretraining-based and prompting-based methods under user-level and temporal distribution shifts, demonstrating robust generalization to out-of-distribution mobility patterns.
Sparks of In Silico Cognitive Science: Theories from Simulated Data Can Generalize to Humans
Behavioral foundation models have been proposed as stand-ins for human participants across settings, but it is unclear whether theories discovered on them generalize to humans or merely characterize the simulator. We ran the Automated Cognitive Scientist (AutoCog), a closed-loop discovery system in which LLM agents design theory-discriminating experiments, collect responses, arbitrate between competing theories, and synthesize successors, entirely on behavior simulated by Centaur, a foundation model of human behavior. In a multi-attribute decision-making setting, the theories AutoCog found on Centaur generalized to human data: they outperformed canonical theories on ten held-out experiments and were rivaled only by theories found by running the same loop on people. We argue that this succeeds despite the simulator's inevitable imperfections because a discovery loop that arbitrates between competing theories demands less of its simulator than estimation does. The simulator only needs to capture the regularities that distinguish the theories, and not necessarily reproduce behavior precisely. Imperfect simulators can therefore widen the search over theories, with human data then testing whether the surfaced theories generalize.
More accurate behavioral predictions with hybrid Bayesian-connectionist models
Researchers must often choose between Bayesian or neural network models of behavior, two paradigms with complementary strengths and weaknesses. An ideal paradigm would facilitate testing many kinds of representations and inductive biases; Bayesian models make this easy, while neural networks do not. Similarly, an ideal paradigm would avoid over-simplifications; neural networks make this easy, while Bayesian models do not. Here, we introduce Bayesian distillation with Behavioral Tuning (BBT) as an approach to getting the best of both traditions. BBT offers a simple recipe for model building: first, a neural network is trained to mimic a Bayesian model through synthetic data, and second, the network is fine-tuned on human behavior to capture additional structure and nuance. Across four case studies in human concept learning, we find that BBT outperforms traditional approaches at predicting human behavior while also revealing psychological insights, resulting in models that can both mimic Bayesian priors and capture heuristics and biases that violate simple modeling assumptions.
Modeling Human Behavior with Type Vectors Using AI
We introduce a general, easy-to-implement AI-based modeling technique for analyzing human behavior. A key feature of this approach, which contrasts with existing modeling techniques, is that it combines the flexibility and interpretability of natural language with a mathematical structure that can be fitted to data and easily analyzed. We assign a large language model a vector of trait intensities-a type vector-and then ask it to choose actions across settings in which we observe human choices. For instance, the type vector (2,4) could correspond to "You are a player characterized by the following profile: Altruism: 2 out of 5, Risk Aversion: 4 out of 5," after which it is asked to make choices. We can then vary the traits (e.g., Altruism, Fairness, Trust,...) and values (e.g., 1-5) to minimize distance to human choices. We illustrate the method by applying it to model 119,147 decisions made by 78,657 subjects from more than 35 countries across 10 classic economic game roles. We find that human behavior can be closely matched using three dimensions: Risk Aversion, Strategic Sophistication, and Trust. The type vectors needed to fit individuals across games cluster into fewer than a dozen groups, with substantial variation in fit across subjects. Moreover, the individual type vectors can predict behavior in held-out games with different rules and available actions. More broadly, this new modeling method is highly generalizable and interpretable: we can input any vector of traits and use them to model behavior across any setting
Small Foundation Models of Human Cognition and Behaviour
Large language models fine-tuned on human behavioural data have emerged as general-purpose cognitive proxies, but the scale this requires, and whether these models process task structure or exploit statistical shortcuts, remain open questions. We train fourteen models from 135M to 14B parameters across four architecture families on Psych-101, a dataset of 10.7 million trial-level choices from 160 experiments. For in-distribution simulations, scale barely matters. The models fall within a narrow band, as though against a ceiling, and 0.6B to 1B parameters suffice to match a 70B baseline on held-out participants. Out-of-distribution, that band opens into a markedly steeper scaling gradient, with larger models clearly advantaged in generalisation to novel task structure. To determine what information these models use, we run two diagnostics. We progressively strip four prompt channels -- task instructions, experimental stimuli, outcome feedback, and choice history -- across 27 experiments, and permute trial order. Masking the content of stimuli and feedback destroys 75.7% of learned information and pushes models below chance, demonstrating that choice history alone does not account for performance. Permutation reveals invariance on tasks with independent trials but sensitivity where trial order is determined by prior responses. Small cognitively fine-tuned models therefore show promise as noise ceiling estimators for psychological experiments, though their scope remains bounded by the paradigms seen in training.
Mental World Modeling
World models enable a predictive substrate for planning and action, yet existing formulations merely answer a physical question: what/where it is, and how will it evolve. Human behavior, however, is driven by hidden mental state (what a person believes, wants, intends, feels, and considers socially permissible), so a model that tracks the physical scene but not what each agent knows and believes about it predicts the wrong action for the right-looking scene. We formulate Mental World Modeling (MWM), a generic theoretical framework that makes mental variables core components of a world model rather than posthoc rationales: MWM aintains a coupled physical-mental world state, renders a target-specific partial observation, and simulates how candidate actions jointly update both components. We instantiate the framework in MENTIS, a training-free and fully inspectable baseline that decomposes the process into state parsing, target-observation generation, action decomposition, coupled physical and mental transition, and branch-level value evaluation. On a manually constructed, quality-controlled dataset of situated decision scenarios spanning text, image, and sounding-video stories, experiments with 8 modern LLM-based world models demonstrate that explicitly modeling the mental state is essential for predicting human decisions. Deeper analyses further expose the bottlenecks of current mental world modeling. We expect MWM as a next stage of world modeling, from simulating physical scenes to simulating the minds that act in them.
BehaviorBench: Benchmarking Foundation Models for Behavioral Science Tasks
Foundation models have been increasingly applied to behavioral science domains such as psychology, sociology, and economics. While these models show promise in tasks such as survey response prediction and human-subject experiment simulation, there remains no systematic understanding of how well they perform across diverse behavioral science tasks. We introduce BehaviorBench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates foundation models along four core capabilities: (1) behavior prediction and simulation, (2) strategic decision-making, (3) subject-trait inference, and (4) behavioral knowledge application. Crucially, BehaviorBench evaluates model outputs at both the individual and distributional levels, capturing not only per-subject accuracy but also population-level alignment, an essential requirement for behavioral validity. Our evaluation shows that BehaviorBench remains challenging for leading general-purpose LLMs and behavior foundation models that are specifically trained with behavioral data. We find that individual-level and distributional performance do not always align. General-purpose LLMs tend to underestimate the diversity of human responses, whereas behavior foundation models often lag behind at individual-level prediction. Our investigation further demonstrates how fine-tuning on diverse behavioral data can improve both individual-level prediction and distributional alignment, balancing these two objectives. Our results highlight the importance of evaluation at both individual and distributional levels, establishing BehaviorBench as a foundation for developing and assessing behaviorally aligned AI systems. Our BehaviorBench and models can be accessed via https://umich-foreseer.github.io/behaviorbench/
Using Cognitive Models to Improve Language Model Simulation of Human Persuasion Games
People make decisions differently in strategic interactions. Some update beliefs like a Bayesian; others exhibit biases like motivated reasoning. Although creators of large language models use simulated humans for safety evaluations and training, they often fail to cover this breadth of human behavior. We argue that cognitive science and economics provide a convenient tool for doing so, making use of mathematical models of human decision-making. We propose an approach that we call Equation-to-Behavior Prompting for guiding large language models to match cognitive models, and evaluate this approach on persuasion games based on legal decision-making. We find that large models can approximate equation-based specifications -- Bayesian updating, affine distortion, motivated updating, and Grether's - model -- using prompting, but small models fail to do so. However, training small models with reinforcement learning to adhere to mathematical rules, Equation-to-Behavior RL, reduces belief error by 26.5% in out-of-distribution parameterizations. We show that these simulations can help create diverse training environments; training small models to consider different kinds of decision-makers improves average belief change by 2.5%--12% over Bayesian-only training, even when persuading GPT-5-mini. Our work could improve human simulations for training and evaluation in increasingly realistic settings, and could also enable novel research into more complicated mathematical models of human decision-making.
BehaviorBench: Modeling Real-World User Decisions from Behavioral Traces
Many decision-support settings require systems that adapt to individual users, but evaluation data for this problem remain limited. Existing benchmarks for user understanding often rely on simulated users or model-generated behavior, even though recent work cautions that model-based simulations can diverge systematically from human behavior. We introduce BehaviorBench, a benchmark for evaluating personalized decision modeling from real-world behavioral traces. BehaviorBench reconstructs wallet-level decision histories from observed public prediction-market and on-chain records, and organizes them into two complementary task layers: Belief prediction, which predicts a user's final revealed stance and confidence in a market, and Trade prediction, which predicts the direction and amount of individual transactions. Across 2,000 evaluation wallets, the benchmark contains 141,445 Belief instances and 1,485,972 Trade instances, with disjoint support pools for retrieval-based evaluation. We evaluate frontier and open-weight generative models under four history interfaces: no personalization, direct recent history, generated user profiles, and retrieved support-wallet evidence. Personalization improves Belief prediction more consistently than Trade prediction, model rankings change across task layers and metrics, and different history interfaces expose different failure modes. BehaviorBench provides an evaluation setting for studying whether personalized methods can use real-world behavioral evidence rather than simulated users alone.
Early Prediction of Future Behavioral Strategy from Process Traces
Adaptive systems often need to make task-specific decisions about people from limited evidence: a tutor may need to anticipate how a learner will approach a new problem, a game may need to adapt when a player enters a new level, and a human-AI system may need to infer whether a partner will persist with a plan or switch goals. These decisions depend on person-level tendencies that shape how people solve related tasks, but such tendencies are difficult to infer from standard behavioral evidence. One approach is to use aggregate outcome summaries, such as scores, completion rates, or productivity; these summaries are compact and available across tasks, but can collapse distinct behavioral processes into similar outcomes. Another approach is to use process-level traces, which record how behavior unfolds; however, process modeling within one task can entangle stable person-level tendencies with task-specific layout and affordances. In this work, we study early cross-task behavioral inference: whether partial source-task process traces can reveal transferable person-level structure that predicts strategy in a held-out target task. We introduce a Process-Level Latent Variable Model (PLVM), which encodes task-specific traces and fuses them into a shared person-level latent representation for cross-task prediction. In PowerWash Simulator, a naturalistic telemetry dataset of human gameplay, PLVM uses partial traces from two cleaning tasks to predict locally persistent Zone Planner behavior versus frequent Zone Hopper behavior in the held-out Fire Station level. Controlled simulations with known latent types show that cross-task fusion helps when source tasks reveal complementary dimensions of a shared latent process. These results suggest that process-level cross-task modeling can support early prediction of target-task strategy when observing sufficient target-task behavior is impractical.
BEHAVE: Real-Time Modeling of Human Systems as Observable Complex Dynamical Systems and Operational Objects for Physical AI
A robot can track every person and still fail to see the system those people form. BEHAVE treats an interacting human group as a complex dynamical system: a HumanSystem, an observable, persistent, relational object whose state is carried partly by interaction structure. It is therefore neither explicit in independent individual-track representations nor reducible to simple aggregates. We call this operational emergence. On public pedestrian data, interaction evidence improves group discrimination beyond proximity (AUC 0.896->0.933). On 24 bottleneck runs, future-calm and future-breakdown moments matched on density, mean speed, flow and speed dispersion differ in neighbour-level organization under run-level inference (p=0.028). From interaction evidence K, BEHAVE constructs conservative routing P and local dynamics J=-D+GP, separating routing from gain and relaxation. Stability, critical modes and response become explicit model quantities. We derive exact bounds on what topology can change in collective stability, and conditions under which an observable is blind to the mode becoming unstable. In a causal real-data stress test, the coupled operator improves held-out local dynamics over self-only relaxation by 4.5%. The fitted stability margin St is prospectively associated with future throughput loss but overlaps with lag-1 autocorrelation and self-only relaxation; we read it as a model-based early-warning quantity, not a superior scalar alarm. For Physical AI, the HumanSystem provides a real-time human-side object between perception and action. A robot or scheduler can query group state, structure, critical modes and forced response. Action-conditioned stability changes are reported only when supported by identified changes in human dynamics or signed human-machine coupling. Mixed human-machine systems are represented through a joint Jacobian.
How Well Do Large Language Models Capture Human Personality?
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human populations via persona prompting, often under the assumptions that richer persona descriptions improve behavioral fidelity, similarly sized attribute combinations are equally simulatable, and persona definitions generalize across tasks. In this work, we formalize these assumptions and systematically evaluate them across multiple architectures, scales, and simulation settings. We identify a fundamental limitation we term persona manifold collapse, where increasingly expressive persona specifications lead to systematic contraction of representational and behavioral diversity. Across models, increasing persona complexity consistently reduces inter-persona separation in latent space and weakens behavioral differentiation in downstream simulation tasks. These effects persist across multiple analyses as richer personas fail to preserve human subgroup disagreement, performance varies across attribute combinations of similar size, and adding descriptive detail often degrades rather than improves simulation fidelity. Surprisingly, simple Age-Gender personas consistently outperform richly specified Ideal Customer Profiles (ICPs) across industries, achieving substantially higher downstream prediction accuracy. We find that collapse is not uniform across attributes. Certain combinations remain behaviorally stable and preserve stronger alignment with human responses, forming localized regions we term alignment bridges. Together, our results provide empirical and conceptual foundations for understanding the limits of persona-conditioned simulation, highlighting the need for representation-aware persona construction rather than increasing persona expressivity alone.
Reason to Play: Behavioral and Brain Alignment Between Frontier LRMs and Human Game Learners
Humans rapidly learn abstract knowledge when encountering novel environments and flexibly deploy this knowledge to guide efficient and intelligent action. Can modern AI systems learn and plan in a similar way? We study this question using a dataset of complex human gameplay with concurrent fMRI recordings, in which participants learn novel video games that require rule discovery, hypothesis revision, and multi-step planning. We jointly evaluate models by their ability to play the games, match human learning behavior, and predict brain activity during the same task, comparing a suite of frontier Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) against model-free and model-based deep reinforcement learning agents and a Bayesian theory-based agent. We find that frontier LRMs most closely match human behavioral patterns during game discovery and predict brain activity an order of magnitude better than both reinforcement learning alternatives across cortical and subcortical regions, with effects robust to permutation controls. Through targeted manipulations, we further show that brain alignment reflects the model's in-context representation of the game state rather than its downstream planning or reasoning. Our results establish LRMs as compelling computational accounts of human learning and decision making in complex, naturalistic environments. Project page with interactive replays: https://botcs.github.io/reason-to-play/
Post-training makes large language models less human-like
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.
Think-Aloud Reshapes Automated Cognitive Model Discovery Beyond Behavior
Computational cognitive models discovered using large language models have so far relied solely on behavioral data. However, it is well-known that models produced from the behavioral trajectory alone are typically under-determined. In this work, we explore the use of Think Aloud traces as an additional form of data constraint during automated model discovery. When applied to the domain of risky decision-making, we find that the models discovered with think-aloud achieve significantly improved predictive performance on held-out data. Additionally, we find that the discovered models belong to different structural classes than those discovered from behavior alone for the majority of participants (69.4%), specifically, it shifts from Explicit comparator towards Integrated utility. These results suggest that process-level language data not only improve model fit, but also systematically reshape the structure of the discovered cognitive models, enabling the identification of mechanisms that are not recoverable from behavior alone.
Hierarchical Multi-Persona Induction from User Behavioral Logs: Learning Evidence-Grounded and Truthful Personas
Behavioral logs provide rich signals for user modeling, but are noisy and interleaved across diverse intents. Recent work uses LLMs to generate interpretable natural-language personas from user logs, yet evaluation often emphasizes downstream utility, providing limited assurance of persona quality itself. We propose a hierarchical framework that aggregates user actions into intent memories and induces multiple evidence-grounded personas by clustering and labeling these memories. We formulate persona induction as an optimization problem over persona quality-captured by cluster cohesion, persona-evidence alignment, and persona truthfulness-and train the persona model using a groupwise extension of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Experiments on a large-scale service log and two public datasets show that our method induces more coherent, evidence-grounded, and trustworthy personas, while also improving future interaction prediction.
LLMs Reading the Rhythms of Daily Life: Aligned Understanding for Behavior Prediction and Generation
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.
Multi-Cycle Spatio-Temporal Adaptation in Human-Robot Teaming
Effective human-robot teaming is crucial for the practical deployment of robots in human workspaces. However, optimizing joint human-robot plans remains a challenge due to the difficulty of modeling individualized human capabilities and preferences. While prior research has leveraged the multi-cycle structure of domains like manufacturing to learn an individual's tendencies and adapt plans over repeated interactions, these techniques typically consider task-level and motion-level adaptation in isolation. Task-level methods optimize allocation and scheduling but often ignore spatial interference in close-proximity scenarios; conversely, motion-level methods focus on collision avoidance while ignoring the broader task context. This paper introduces RAPIDDS, a framework that unifies these approaches by modeling an individual's spatial behavior (motion paths) and temporal behavior (time required to complete tasks) over multiple cycles. RAPIDDS then jointly adapts task schedules and steers diffusion models of robot motions to maximize efficiency and minimize proximity accounting for these individualized models. We demonstrate the importance of this dual adaptation through an ablation study in simulation and a physical robot scenario using a 7-DOF robot arm. Finally, we present a user study (n=32) showing significant plan improvement compared to non-adaptive systems across both objective metrics, such as efficiency and proximity, and subjective measures, including fluency and user preference. See this paper's companion video at: https://youtu.be/55Q3lq1fINs.
Improving Human Performance with Value-Aware Interventions: A Case Study in Chess
AI systems are increasingly used to assist humans in sequential decision-making tasks, yet determining when and how an AI assistant should intervene remains a fundamental challenge. A potential baseline is to recommend the optimal action according to a strong model. However, such actions assume optimal follow-up actions, which human decision makers may fail to execute, potentially reducing overall performance. In this work, we propose and study value-aware interventions, motivated by a basic principle in reinforcement learning: under the Bellman equation, the optimal policy selects actions that maximize the immediate reward plus the value function. When a decision maker follows a suboptimal policy, this policy-value consistency no longer holds, creating discrepancies between the actions taken by the policy and those that maximize the immediate reward plus the value of the next state. We show that these policy-value inconsistencies naturally identify opportunities for intervention. We formalize this problem in a Markov decision process where an AI assistant may override human actions under an intervention budget. In the single-intervention regime, we show that the optimal strategy is to recommend the action that maximizes the human value function. For settings with multiple interventions, we propose a tractable approximation that prioritizes interventions based on the magnitude of the policy-value discrepancy. We evaluate these ideas in the domain of chess by learning models of humans from large-scale gameplay data. In simulation, our approach consistently outperforms interventions based on the strongest chess engine (Stockfish) in a wide range of settings. A within-subject human study with 20 players and 600 games further shows that our interventions significantly improve performance for low- and mid-skill players while matching expert-engine interventions for high-skill players.
Context-Value-Action Architecture for Value-Driven Large Language Model Agents
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in simulating human behavior, yet existing agents often exhibit behavioral rigidity, a flaw frequently masked by the self-referential bias of current "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluations. By evaluating against empirical ground truth, we reveal a counter-intuitive phenomenon: increasing the intensity of prompt-driven reasoning does not enhance fidelity but rather exacerbates value polarization, collapsing population diversity. To address this, we propose the Context-Value-Action (CVA) architecture, grounded in the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model and Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values. Unlike methods relying on self-verification, CVA decouples action generation from cognitive reasoning via a novel Value Verifier trained on authentic human data to explicitly model dynamic value activation. Experiments on CVABench, which comprises over 1.1 million real-world interaction traces, demonstrate that CVA significantly outperforms baselines. Our approach effectively mitigates polarization while offering superior behavioral fidelity and interpretability.
Alignment Makes Language Models Normative, Not Descriptive
Post-training alignment optimizes language models to match human preference signals, but this objective is not equivalent to modeling observed human behavior. We compare 120 base-aligned model pairs on more than 10,000 real human decisions in multi-round strategic games - bargaining, persuasion, negotiation, and repeated matrix games. In these settings, base models outperform their aligned counterparts in predicting human choices by nearly 10:1, robustly across model families, prompt formulations, and game configurations. This pattern reverses, however, in settings where human behavior is more likely to follow normative predictions: aligned models dominate on one-shot textbook games across all 12 types tested and on non-strategic lottery choices - and even within the multi-round games themselves, at round one, before interaction history develops. This boundary-condition pattern suggests that alignment induces a normative bias: it improves prediction when human behavior is relatively well captured by normative solutions, but hurts prediction in multi-round strategic settings, where behavior is shaped by descriptive dynamics such as reciprocity, retaliation, and history-dependent adaptation. These results reveal a fundamental trade-off between optimizing models for human use and using them as proxies for human behavior.
HugAgent: A Human Simulation Benchmark for Individual-Level Reasoning
Simulating human reasoning in open-ended tasks has long been a central aspiration in AI and cognitive science. While large language models now approximate human responses at scale, they remain tuned to population-level consensus, often erasing the individuality of reasoning styles and belief trajectories. To advance the vision of more human-like reasoning in machines, we introduce HugAgent (HUman-Grounded AGENT Benchmark), which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions: (i) from averaged to individualized reasoning, (ii) from behavioral mimicry to cognitive alignment, and (iii) from vignette-based to open-ended data. The benchmark evaluates whether a model can predict a specific person's behavioral responses and the underlying reasoning dynamics in out-of-distribution scenarios, given partial evidence of their prior views. HugAgent combines structured questionnaires with semi-structured think-aloud interviews to collect ecologically valid belief states, belief updates, and reasoning traces from human participants. Our experiments reveal a clear asymmetry: models recover a person's belief state from their own context reasonably well, but struggle to predict belief updates under intervention. Cross-person and cross-domain controls trace this gap to associative matching within a topic rather than identity-consistent reasoning, suggesting that progress requires better-calibrated change detection, not simply more context. We scope the benchmark to self-reported belief reasoning in three policy domains: healthcare, surveillance, and zoning. The benchmark, along with its complete data collection pipeline and companion chatbot, is open-sourced as HugAgent (https://github.com/jajamoa/HugAgent) and TraceYourThinking (https://github.com/jajamoa/trace-your-thinking).