Human Behavior Simulation

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as interactive social agents, yet their ability to maintain coherent and authentic persona-level role-playing remains limited, particularly in realistic social scenarios. Existing research predominantly focuses on character-level settings and relies on static evaluation formats, failing to capture the complexity of everyday social interactions. In this work, we present PersonaArena, a dynamic simulation framework for evaluating and improving persona-level role-playing in LLMs. PersonaArena leverages a large, filtered corpus of user-generated social content to construct a nuanced persona bank, and elicits multi-turn, context-rich interactions within simulated social environments. Our framework features a multi-agent debating judge for holistic and unbiased assessment. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that PersonaArena enables rigorous evaluation and enhancement of LLMs' role-playing capabilities, advancing the development of more authentic and socially adept AI agents.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) in economic simulations has significantly enhanced agent-based modeling, yet existing frameworks struggle to capture the interplay between short-term optimization and long-term strategic planning. Conventional approaches rely on static data-driven predictions, failing to incorporate adaptive behaviors influenced by economic sentiment, market volatility, and individual goals. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel EconAI framework, incorporating economic sentiment indexing (ESI), memory weighting, and dynamic decision-making mechanisms. By quantifying economic belief, adjusting historical data influence, and linking work-consumption behaviors, EconAI achieves a more human-like decision process, where agents adapt their actions based on both market signals and long-term objectives. It is the first LLM-powered simulation system that can simulate the macro/microeconomic environment and interactions in a unified framework. Empirical evaluations show that EconAI improves stability in economic responses, better replicates real-world employment-consumption cycles, and enhances overall decision robustness. This advancement marks a crucial step towards more realistic, adaptive economic agent simulations.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent simulation offers a powerful testbed for studying social opinion dynamics. Yet current approaches often adopt two contrasting methods: either relying on fixed update rules with limited cognitive grounding or delegating belief change largely to unconstrained LLM interaction. We introduce ScioMind, a cognitively grounded simulation framework that bridges these paradigms by combining structured opinion dynamics with LLM-based agent reasoning. ScioMind integrates three key components: 1) a memory-anchored belief update rule that modulates susceptibility to influence via personality-conditioned anchoring strength; 2) a hierarchical memory architecture that supports persistent, experience-driven belief formation; and 3) dynamic agent profiles derived from a corpus-grounded retrieval pipeline, enabling heterogeneous personalities, rationales, and evolving internal states. We evaluate ScioMind on multiple case studies in a real-world policy debate scenario. Across metrics including polarisation, diversity, extremization, and trajectory stability, the proposed components consistently yield improvements in behavioural realism. In particular, dynamic profiles increase opinion diversity, memory and reflection reduce unstable oscillation, and anchoring induces persistent belief trajectories that better align with patterns reported in political psychology. These results suggest that our cognitively grounded design provides a novel solution to LLM-based social simulation that improves both stable and behavioural realism

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in settings where they interact with diverse users, including those who are unclear, impatient, or reluctant to share information. However, collecting real interaction data at scale remains expensive. The field has turned to LLM-based \emph{user simulators} as stand-ins, but these simulators inherit the behavior of their underlying models: cooperative and homogeneous. As a result, agents that appear strong in simulation often fail in real human interactions. To narrow this gap, we introduce Persona Policies (PPol), a plug-and-play control layer that induces realistic behavioral variation in user simulators while preserving original task goals. Rather than hand-crafting personas, we employ an evolutionary coding agent to discover persona generation programs optimized for human-likeness and behavioral coverage over real user conversations. The evolved program generates diverse, human-like personas for any task in the domain. Across 4 benchmarks--including $τ^2$-bench Retail and Airline, ColBench, and WildChat--evolved PPol yield 28-72% absolute gains in fitness score over the baseline simulator. In blinded evaluations, annotators judged PPol users as 'human' 80.4% of the time, nearly 2x more than the baseline simulators. Training agents with PPol also improves real-world performance: our user study with live human-agent interactions showed that fine-tuning with our method boosted task success by +23% over default baselines. PPol thus offers a novel approach to strengthen simulator-based evaluation and training without changing underlying tasks.

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.

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.

Digital personas powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as substitutes for human survey respondents, yet it remains unclear when they can reliably approximate human survey findings. We answer this question using the LISS panel, constructing personas from respondents' background variables and pre-2023 survey histories, then testing them against the same respondents' held-out post-cutoff answers. Across four persona architectures, three LLMs, and two prediction tasks, we assess performance at the question, respondent, distributional, equity, and clustering levels. Digital personas improve alignment with human response distributions, especially in domains tied to stable attributes and values, but remain limited for individual prediction and fail to recover multivariate respondent structure. Retrieval-augmented architectures provide the clearest gains, but performance depends more on human response structure than on model choice: personas perform best for low-variability questions and common respondent patterns, and worst for subjective, heterogeneous, or rare responses. Our results provide practical guidance on when digital personas could be appropriate for survey research and when human validation remains necessary.

Agent-based modeling (ABM) has long been used in economics to study human behavior, and large language model (LLM) agents now enable new forms of social and economic simulation. While prior work has discovered strategic deception by LLM agents in financial trading and auction markets, e-commerce remains underexplored despite its distinctive information asymmetry: sellers privately observe product quality, whereas buyers rely on advertised claims and reputation signals. We introduce TruthMarketTwin, a controlled simulation framework for studying LLM-agent behavior in e-commerce markets. The framework is one of the first to model bilateral trade under asymmetric information sharing, where agents make strategic listing, purchasing, rating, and recourse-related decisions to optimize seller profit and buyer utility. We find that LLM agents released into traditional markets autonomously exploit weaknesses in reputation-based governance, while warrant enforcement reduces deception and reshapes strategic reasoning. Our results position LLM-agent simulation as a tool for studying institution-governed autonomous markets.

LLM agents are increasingly used to simulate real world interactions, but it remains unclear whether simulated behaviors preserve the content patterns and interaction dynamics of real human behaviors. Existing evaluations remain fragmented, which makes it difficult to compare systems or measure progress. In this paper, we focus on Reddit discussions as a concrete first step toward evaluating real-world social simulation. Reddit threads provide public, topic-grounded, multi-party interactions where people share experiences, debate, seek advice, express emotion, and collectively respond to products, events, and social issues. These discussions offer an observable window into broader social behavior, making them a useful setting for testing whether LLM agents can reproduce not only fluent text, but also the distributional patterns and interaction dynamics of real online communities. We introduce MiroBench, a benchmark for Reddit discussion simulation built from 4,292 real Reddit threads. MiroBench uses statistical tests to compare generated and real discussions across four major aspects: repetition and semantic uniformity, narrative content, toxicity and aggression, and structural complexity. Experiments across five domains and five models show that current simulators remain distributionally mismatched with real Reddit threads, while a lightweight prompt-based improvement procedure provides only limited gains. MiroBench offers a concrete benchmark for measuring, diagnosing, and improving realism in LLM-based social simulation.

Closed-loop traffic simulation requires agents that are both scalable and behaviorally realistic. Recent self-play reinforcement learning approaches demonstrate strong scalability, but their equilibrium strategies fail to capture the socially aware behaviors of real human drivers. We propose a hierarchical architecture that goes beyond self-play by combining high-level multi-agent interaction reasoning with low-level continuous trajectory realization. Specifically, a Stackelberg-style Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) module generates interaction-aware intention commands. These commands condition a low-level continuous motion module, translating the strategic intent into physically consistent, scene-responsive control sequences. To mitigate distribution shift in closed-loop deployment, we introduce a hybrid co-training scheme combining MARL with auxiliary recovery supervision. Experiments on a SUMO-based urban network demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves superior control smoothness and safety compared to self-play and passive imitation baselines, while maintaining competitive traffic efficiency.

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/

As user simulators are increasingly used for interactive training and evaluation of AI assistants, it is essential that they represent the diverse behaviors of real users. While existing works train user simulators to generate human-like responses, whether they capture the broad and heterogeneous distribution of real user behaviors remains an open question. In this work, we introduce a method to measure the distributional gap between real and simulated user behaviors, validated through a human study and ablations. Given a dataset of real and simulated conversations, our method extracts representations of user behavior from each conversation, quantizes them into discrete distributions via clustering, then computes divergence metrics. We provide the first systematic evaluation of 24 LLM-based user simulators on coding and writing tasks, and reveal a large distributional gap from real users that varies across model families, scales, and behavioral facets. Pairwise comparisons show that most simulators behave similarly, while a few stand apart. Combining behaviorally complementary simulators brings the resulting distribution closer to real users compared to either simulator on its own. Finally, a TF-IDF analysis of the clusters surfaces interpretable patterns of behaviors that simulators capture, miss, and hallucinate.

Large-scale social simulators are essential for studying complex social patterns. Prior work explores hybrid methods to scale up simulations, combining large language models (LLM)-based agents with numerical agent-based models (ABM). However, this incurs high latency due to expensive memory retrieval and sequential ABM execution. To address this challenge, we propose GASim, a graph-accelerated hybrid multi-agent framework for large-scale social simulations. For core agents driven by LLM, GASim introduces Graph-Optimized Memory (GOM) to replace intensive LLM-based retrieval pipelines with lightweight propagation over a sparse memory graph. For the majority of ordinary agents, GASim employs Graph Message Passing (GMP), substituting sequential ABM execution with parallel updates by fine-grained feature aggregation and Graph Attention Network. We further introduce Entropy-Driven Grouping (EDG) that coordinates this hybrid partitioning, leveraging information entropy to dynamically identify emergent core agents situated in information-diverse neighborhoods. Extensive experiments show that GASim not only delivers a substantial 9.94-fold end-to-end speedup over the traditional hybrid framework but also consumes less than 20% of baseline tokens, significantly reducing costs while preserving strong alignment with real-world public opinion trends. Our code is available at https://github.com/Jasmine0201/GASim.

Can LLMs simulate how humans form and change beliefs in social networks? We put this to the test by replicating an established study on belief dynamics, evaluating 12 LLMs across multiple model families and parameter sizes. The answer is a clear no, and in systematic ways. LLMs fail to capture initial human belief distributions and tend to be overall more conformist than humans, shifting their responses to align with those around them. They also take a nuanced approach to emulating human homophilic tendencies within networks. Our findings carry a double payoff: they highlight fundamental properties of LLM behavior, and they raise a sharp warning against deploying LLMs as human proxies in social simulations.

Conversational recommender systems (CRS) increasingly rely on user simulators for automated evaluation of sales agents. A key requirement for such simulators is the ability to model human decision-making. However, most existing simulation frameworks do not explicitly model the internal decision process, and LLM-based simulators often exhibit unrealistically strong information-processing capabilities, rarely exhibit the hesitation or decision deferral commonly observed in real consumer behavior, resulting in overly high acceptance probabilities. To address this limitation, we propose Hesitator, a theory-grounded user simulation framework that explicitly models human decision-making under choice overload. The framework introduces a modular Decision Module that separates utility-based item selection from overload-aware commitment decisions. Experiments across multiple user simulation frameworks, domains, sales modes, and LLM backbones show that integrating our module consistently mitigates unrealistic behaviors under increasing overload conditions. Furthermore, Hesitator reproduces established behavioral patterns from psychological economics, demonstrating its ability to model human decision behavior.

Partisan news media erode cross-partisan trust, but large language models (LLMs) offer a potential means of debiasing such content at scale. Across two pre-registered experiments, we tested whether LLM-generated debiasing of liberal news headlines could improve conservative readers' trust-relevant judgments. Study 1 found that subtle lexical debiasing (replacing emotive words with more moderate synonyms) had no effect on any outcome. Study 2 found that a more substantive reframing intervention significantly increased conservatives' perceived trustworthiness, completeness, and willingness to engage with liberal news headlines, without producing a backfire effect among a sample of liberals. In Study 1, the intervention produced robust effects among LLM-simulated silicon participants, whereas it had no impact on human readers. In Study 2, the intervention's effects among silicon participants aligned directionally with human responses but were significantly larger in magnitude for some outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that the model's implicit theory of who responds to debiasing diverged from the psychological profile that actually predicted human responsiveness. These findings demonstrate that LLM-based debiasing can improve cross-partisan receptivity when targeting ideological framing rather than surface-level language, but that current models lack both the quantitative accuracy and qualitative psychological fidelity to evaluate their own interventions without human oversight.

Studies attempting to simulate human behavior with $\textit{Silicon Societies}$ grow in numbers while LLM-only social networks have started appearing outside of controlled settings. However, the design space of these networks remains under-studied, which contributes to a gap in validating model realism. To enable future works to make more informed design decisions, we perform a systematic analysis of the consequences and interactions of key design choices in simulated social networks, including the choice of base model used to model individual agents, and how they are connected to each other. Using surveys as a proxy for agent opinions, our findings suggest that the geometry of the design space is non-trivial, with some parameters behaving in additive ways while others display more complex interactions. In particular, the choice of the base LLM is the most important variable impacting the simulation outcomes.

Political parties strive to understand their electorates, and focus groups are a vital tool in these efforts. AI-enhanced simulation technologies (AESTs) enable synthetic focus groups in a fraction of the time (and cost), raising the question of when and how such simulated evidence can be used in campaign research. This paper develops a decision matrix to help party strategists match research needs to appropriate simulation technologies and to identify when to escalate to hybrid or fully human focus groups. The matrix combines three dimensions: strategic purpose, deployment risk, and empirical grounding of the simulation tool. Strategic purpose is the decisive dimension, as it determines what kind of evidence the focus group is meant to produce: observing how political meanings and identities emerge through interaction (Mode 1) or testing and refining campaign messages (Mode 2). The matrix shows that, given documented failure modes such as sycophancy, persona drift, and the suppression of minority viewpoints, AESTs cannot replace human interaction in Mode 1 at any risk level. Within Mode 2, suitability depends instead on deployment risk and on the empirical grounding. Yet even here, we caution that routine reliance on AESTs may erode the qualitative craft on which sound judgment depends.

User simulation has long played a vital role in computer science due to its potential to support a wide range of applications. Language, as the primary medium of human communication, forms the foundation of social interaction and behavior. Consequently, simulating conversational behavior has become a key area of study. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly catalyzed progress in this domain by enabling high-fidelity generation of synthetic user conversation. In this paper, we survey recent advancements in LLM-based conversational user simulation. We introduce a novel taxonomy covering user granularity and simulation objectives. Additionally, we systematically analyze core techniques and evaluation methodologies. We aim to keep the research community informed of the latest advancements in conversational user simulation and to further facilitate future research by identifying open challenges and organizing existing work under a unified framework.

Applications based on large language models (LLMs), such as multi-agent simulations, require population diversity among agents. We identify a pervasive failure mode we term \emph{Persona Collapse}: agents each assigned a distinct profile nonetheless converge into a narrow behavioral mode, producing a homogeneous simulated population. To quantify persona collapse, we propose a framework that measures how much of the persona space a population occupies (Coverage), how evenly agents spread across it (Uniformity), and how rich the resulting behavioral patterns are (Complexity). Evaluating ten LLMs on personality simulation (BFI-44), moral reasoning, and self-introduction, we observe persona collapse along two axes: (1) Dimensions: a model can appear diverse on one axis yet structurally degenerate on another, and (2) Domains: the same model may collapse the most in personality yet be the most diverse in moral reasoning. Furthermore, item-level diagnostics reveal that behavioral variation tracks coarse demographic stereotypes rather than the fine-grained individual differences specified in each persona. Counter-intuitively, \textbf{the models achieving the highest per-persona fidelity consistently produce the most stereotyped populations}. We release our toolkit and data to support population-level evaluation of LLMs.

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.

Human moral judgment is context-dependent and modulated by interpersonal relationships. As large language models (LLMs) increasingly function as decision-support systems, determining whether they encode these social nuances is critical. We characterize machine behavior using the Whistleblower's Dilemma by varying two experimental dimensions: crime severity and relational closeness. Our study evaluates three distinct perspectives: (1) moral rightness (prescriptive norms), (2) predicted human behavior (descriptive social expectations), and (3) autonomous model decision-making. By analyzing the reasoning processes, we identify a clear cross-perspective divergence: while moral rightness remains consistently fairness-oriented, predicted human behavior shifts significantly toward loyalty as relational closeness increases. Crucially, model decisions align with moral rightness judgments rather than their own behavioral predictions. This inconsistency suggests that LLM decision-making prioritizes rigid, prescriptive rules over the social sensitivity present in their internal world-modeling, which poses a gap that may lead to significant misalignments in real-world deployments.

Understanding how road users resolve space-sharing conflicts is important both for traffic safety and the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles. While existing models have captured specific aspects of such interactions (e.g., explicit communication), a theoretically-grounded computational framework has been lacking. In this paper, we extend a previously developed active inference-based driver behavior model to simulate interactive behavior of two agents. Our model captures three complementary mechanisms for uncertainty reduction in interaction: (i) implicit communication via direct behavioral coupling, (ii) reliance on normative expectations (stop signs, priority rules, etc.), and (iii) explicit communication. In a simplified intersection scenario, we show that normative and explicit communication cues can increase the likelihood of a successful conflict resolution. However, this relies on agents acting as expected. In situations where another agent (intentionally or unintentionally) violates normative expectations or communicates misleading information, reliance on these cues may induce collisions. These findings illustrate how active inference can provide a novel framework for modeling road user interactions which is also applicable in other fields.

Team-level failure in nuclear control rooms arises not from isolated operator error, but from emergent interaction dynamics, delayed diagnosis, suppressed dissent, and authority-driven error propagation, that conventional human reliability analysis methods are structurally unable to model. This study introduces TEAM-SimHRA, a multi-agent large language model simulation framework that reconceptualizes human reliability as an interaction-driven emergent property of control room teams rather than a static individual attribute. Unlike existing approaches that assign fixed error probabilities to predefined tasks, TEAM-SimHRA reproduces collective cognition, role-conditioned authority dynamics, and real-time communication suppression across temporally evolving accident progressions. Validated against the Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) accidents, the two most extensively documented nuclear team failures , the framework achieves face-validity pass rates of 43.5% and 52.6% respectively, reproducing near-historical decision delay (134.8 vs. 138 min), perfect communication suppression stability, and full authority pressure cascade at historically accurate propagation depth. These results demonstrate that multi-agent simulation can extract quantitative team-level reliability indicators that are inaccessible to traditional methods, opening a viable path toward simulation-based dynamic probabilistic risk assessment for safety-critical sociotechnical systems.

Human-centred systems require an understanding of human actions in the physical world. Temporally extended sequences of actions are intentional and structured, yet existing methods for recognising what actions are performed often do not attempt to capture their structure, particularly how the actions are executed. This, however, is crucial for assessing the quality of the action's execution and its differences from other actions. To capture the internal mechanics of actions, we introduce a domain-specific language EXACT that represents human motions as underspecified motion programs, interpreted as reward-generating functions for zero-shot policy inference using forward-backwards representations. By leveraging the compositional nature of EXACT motion programs, we combine individual policies into an executable neuro-symbolic model that uses program structure for compositional modelling. We evaluate the utility of the proposed pipeline for creating executable action models by analysing motion-capture data to understand human actions, for the tasks of human action segmentation and action anomaly detection. Our results show that the use of executable action models improves data efficiency and captures intuitive relationships between actions compared with monolithic, task-specific approaches.

Modeling coordination among generative agents in complex multi-round decision-making presents a core challenge for AI and operations management. Although behavioral experiments have revealed cognitive biases behind supply chain inefficiencies, traditional methods face scalability and control limitations. We introduce a scalable experimental paradigm using Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate multi-stage supply chain dynamics. Grounded in a Hierarchical Reasoning Framework, this study specifically analyzes the impact of cognitive heterogeneity on agent interactions. Unlike prior homogeneous settings, we employ DeepSeek and GPT agents to systematically vary reasoning sophistication across supply chain tiers. Through rigorously replicated and statistically validated simulations, we investigate how this cognitive diversity influences collective outcomes. Results indicate that agents exhibit myopic and self-interested behaviors that exacerbate systemic inefficiencies. However, we demonstrate that information sharing effectively mitigates these adverse effects. Our findings extend traditional behavioral methods and offer new insights into the dynamics of AI-enabled organizations. This work underscores both the potential and limitations of LLM-based agents as proxies for human decision-making in complex operational environments.

As automated vehicles (AVs) enter mixed traffic, proactively anticipating the evolution of human driving behavior during critical interactions, such as lane changes, is essential. However, classical Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) fails to capture the complexity of human decision-making during lane changes. Specifically, by strictly assuming independence between agents, classical models calibrated on empirical payoffs predict a convergence to unrealistic full cooperation, contradicting the stable 42% cooperation rate observed in real-world data. To resolve this discrepancy, this study introduces a Quantum Game Theory (QGT) framework. We analyze 7,636 lane-changing interactions from the Waymo Open Motion Dataset (WOMD) to derive empirical payoff matrices via a Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) model. Utilizing the Marinatto-Weber (MW) quantization scheme, we introduce an entanglement parameter to mathematically embed latent correlations directly into the payoff structure of a single interaction. Our results identify a human entanglement parameter of $|b|^2_{HDV} \approx 0.52$ that accurately reproduces the observed mixed equilibrium. Furthermore, simulations of three AV deployment strategies (classical, entangled, and inverted) reveal that human adaptation depends critically on the underlying AV algorithm: while cooperative classical AVs maximize system-wide cooperation at high market penetration rates, defective inverted AVs paradoxically yield higher overall cooperation at low penetration rates by prompting more cooperative behaviors from human drivers. Consequently, rather than waiting for large scale deployment to observe these effects, stakeholders can utilize this framework to simulate repeated interactions and proactively anticipate how human driver behavior will evolve in response to specific AV software designs.

Simulating group-level user behavior enables scalable counterfactual evaluation of merchant strategies without costly online experiments. However, building a trustworthy simulator faces two structural challenges. First, information incompleteness causes reasoning-based simulators to over-rationalize when unobserved factors such as offline context and implicit habits are missing. Second, mechanism duality requires capturing both interpretable preferences and implicit statistical regularities, which no single paradigm achieves alone. We propose Policy-Guided Hybrid Simulation (PGHS), a dual-process framework that mines transferable decision policies from behavioral trajectories and uses them as a shared alignment layer. This layer anchors an LLM-based reasoning branch that prevents over-rationalization and an ML-based fitting branch that absorbs implicit regularities. Group-level predictions from both branches are fused for complementary correction. We deploy PGHS on Meituan with 101 merchants and over 26,000 trajectories. PGHS achieves a group simulation error of 8.80%, improving over the best reasoning-based and fitting-based baselines by 45.8% and 40.9% respectively.

Generative Agents, owing to their precise modeling and simulation capabilities of human behavior, have become a pivotal tool in the field of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd) for uncovering complex cognitive processes of learners. However, existing educational agents predominantly rely on static personas to simulate student learning behaviors, neglecting the decisive role of deep cognitive capabilities in learning outcomes during practice interactions. Furthermore, they struggle to characterize the dynamic fluidity of knowledge internalization, transfer, and cognitive state transitions. To overcome this bottleneck, this paper proposes a human-like educational agent capable of simulating student cognitive evolution: CogEvolution. Specifically, we first construct a cognitive depth perceptron based on the Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive (ICAP) taxonomy from cognitive psychology, achieving precise quantification of learner cognitive engagement. Subsequently, we propose a memory retrieval method based on Item Response Theory (IRT) to simulate the connection and assimilation of new and prior knowledge. Finally, we design a dynamic cognitive update mechanism based on evolutionary algorithms to simulate the real-time integration of student learning behaviors and cognitive evolution processes. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that CogEvolution not only significantly outperforms baseline models in behavioral fidelity and learning curve fitting but also uniquely reproduces plausible and robust cognitive evolutionary paths consistent with educational psychology expectations, providing a novel paradigm for constructing highly interpretable educational agents.

Attitude change - the process by which individuals revise their evaluative stances - has been explained by a set of influential but competing verbal theories. These accounts often function as mechanism sketches: rich in conceptual detail, yet lacking the technical specifications and operational constraints required to run as executable systems. We present a generative actor-based modelling workflow for "rendering" these sketches as runnable actor - environment simulations using the Concordia simulation library. In Concordia, actors operate by predictive pattern completion: an operation on natural language strings that generates a suffix which describes the actor's intended action from a prefix containing memories of their past and observations of the present. We render the theories of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957), self-consistency (Aronson 1969), and self-perception (Bem 1972) as distinct decision logics that populate and process the prefix through theory-specific sequences of reasoning steps. We evaluate these implementations across classic psychological experiments. Our implementations generate behavioural patterns consistent with known results from the original empirical literature. However, we find that achieving stable reproduction requires resolving the inherent underdetermination of the verbal accounts and the conflicts between modern linguistic priors and historical experimental assumptions. We document how this manual process of iterative model "stabilisation" surfaces specific operational and socio-ecological dependencies that were largely undocumented in the original verbal accounts. Ultimately, we argue that the manual stabilisation process itself should be regarded as a core part of the methodology functioning to clarify situational and representational commitments needed to generate characteristic effects.