Large Language Model-Based Social Simulation

Because significant action to counter global warming requires massive public support, it is important to understand the dynamics of public opinion on climate issues. Of special interest are social tipping points, as revealed by large-scale effects of small perturbations in individual behaviors. Agent-based models (ABM) are an effective computational tool for studying these matters, because they allow controlled and systematic exploration of the effects of interventions that may be infeasible in real-world social systems. Large language models (LLMs) have been used to endow model agents with the ability to communicate in natural language (rather than by exchanging predefined messages), as well as with personality (in the form of a narrative self and episodic memory). We leverage LLM-powered ABM to look for tipping points in the social dynamics of a micro-society in which some of the discussions are about climate change. Our agents' stance was defined by two variables: the strength of conviction about the urgency of climate action and the degree of trust in existing institutions. We quantified shifts in agents' "beliefs" by monitoring, across multiple rounds of conversations, (1) inter-agent distances in this two-dimensional stance space and (2) the patterns of discussion topics as modeled by Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). Our findings to date suggest that significant abrupt changes in climate-change stance do occur in this simple model. We report a number of methodological lessons from this study, notably, the need to prevent LLM biases from interfering with the conversational dynamics and, more generally, to maintain agent personality and episodic memories of interactions in the face of such biases. Resolving these issues may allow for using ABM-derived insights in designing real-life interventions vis-a-vis climate change and other important societal challenges.

Social simulation offers the social sciences an experimental instrument that the real world cannot supply, and generative agents have transformed it by acting as silicon samples that unite agent-based modeling with real behavioral data. Existing platforms verify collective behavior, align simulated populations with real societies in cross-sections, and employ autonomous agents for the research process. However, two social science requirements remain without systematic support: intervention in the content of a simulation and the researcher's control over the process that produces it. We present SocioVerse2, which extends SocioVerse 1.0 into a human-AI co-evolutionary paradigm built from two loops and one infrastructure. The longitudinal simulation loop simulates the target population with evolving environments and forks counterfactual branches via interventions. The controllable research loop takes the study itself as an editable state and updates state versions via controllable editing. The social science agentic infrastructure carries both loops through composable skills with researcher checkpoints, a population service over five persona pools, and an environment service over 21 real-world signal sources with point-in-time guarantees. We validate SocioVerse2 across three case families and seven case studies, from reproducing canonical agent-based models to modeling policy processes on real records and nowcasting macro-economic indices beyond the response model's knowledge cutoff. With the human-AI co-evolutionary paradigm, these cases go beyond system demonstrations to become substantive studies that investigate frontier questions in their respective disciplines. Code, data services, and a workbench are released as open-source resources.

Language model agents are increasingly used to simulate social interaction, and the resulting transcripts read as though the agents understand one another. We ask whether that appearance rests on a model of the partner's mind or on the surface record of what the partner said. We build a social simulation in which both questions have exact answers: 40 multi-issue negotiations whose hidden preference weights and whose full Pareto frontier are known by construction. Two model families negotiate across 160 dyads, every transcript is frozen before any measurement, and 2880 counterfactual probes then hold the evidence byte identical while moving one factor at a time: the reader's own stake, the partner's tone, an identity label, and the order of recursion. The agents are socially fluent and economically poor. They reach agreement in 96.2% of dyads with 0 protocol failures, yet only 0.7% of deals land on the Pareto frontier, they leave 20.5% of the available joint value unclaimed, and they miss the one issue on which their interests are perfectly aligned in 76.6% of deals; on the frontier and on that aligned issue, a package drawn at random from the set both sides would accept does as well. The probes locate the failure. Swapping only the reader's own payoff sheet, while the partner's words and offers stay identical, moves the inferred top priority by 15.0 percentage points, which is egocentric projection rather than inference, while a tone rewrite moves it by 5.3 percentage points and an identity label by 0.0. Most tellingly, an agent predicts what its partner believes about it 72.5% of the time while that partner's belief is itself correct only 51.2% of the time: the agents track the conversation far better than they track the mind behind it.

LLM agents in social simulation revise their opinions implicitly, in context: how open an agent is to persuasion can neither be specified nor verified, and collective outcomes inherit the model's training prior. We introduce Bayesian Chronicle Agents (BCA), a minimal belief layer separating what an agent believes from how it speaks. Each stance is a probability, updated by one Bayesian step per utterance heard. A single prior-strength parameter $κ$ encodes stubbornness, modeled after its role in Friedkin--Johnsen (FJ) opinion dynamics. We then sweep this parameter to yield three canonical regimes of opinion dynamics on demand (consensus, persistent disagreement, committed-minority influence), with persistent disagreement matching the FJ closed-form fixed points at $R^2\!=\!0.93$--$0.99$. We further show that prescribed $κ$ remains recoverable after the language round-trip, with perfect rank-order recovery across all four models. Explicit belief also makes simulation auditable: the layer surfaces systematic per-model stance biases that end-to-end simulation would silently absorb.

The study of opinion dynamics in social networks is one of the key challenges in computational social science with direct relevance to understanding political polarization, misinformation, and health responses. Current approaches focus on simplified mathematical models that ignore linguistic and contextual factors related to belief updates or use Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulations that have not been validated against real data. We present a framework based on the concept of a digital twin to simulate opinion dynamics in social networks. The approach fills the gap by cloning a real-world Twitter network, assigns a set of attributes for agents (such as persona, emotions, centrality, stubbornness, and influence), and employs Mistral-7B to perform opinion update based on memory and social exposure. To evaluate the proposed approach, we validate it against two real Twitter datasets (COVID-19 discourse and U.S elections 2020). The results show that the capability of the proposed framework reproduces opinion trajectories and reduces individual prediction error by more than 50% compared to the best-performing classical baseline (Mistral-7B achieves Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = 0.150 and 0.121 on the COVID-19 and US Election 2020 datasets, respectively). We observe similar improvements in structural alignment (Delta_r = 0.120 and 0.180) and polarization dynamics (Delta_Var = 0.106 and 0.115) on the two datasets, respectively. Additionally, the ablation studies confirm that agent attributes, memory, and social exposure all contribute to the framework's predictive fidelity in reproducing opinion trajectories, with agent attributes being the most critical contributor. Overall, our results demonstrate that grounding Mistral-7B within empirically cloned interaction networks produces a realistic simulation framework capable of reproducing complex social dynamics.

LLM assistants are widely used for daily social advice, yet evaluating their social reasoning in such consultation settings remains challenging since (i) it requires setups where the assistant learns about social situations from subjective user narratives, and (ii) social properties, such as others' intentions, typically lack verifiable ground truth. To address these challenges, we introduce Fuse, a multi-agent simulation framework for studying user-mediated social reasoning. In Fuse, a target agent with a hidden motive interacts with other agents including one representing the user, who then consults the evaluated assistant to infer the target's motive, providing verifiable ground truth by construction. Simulation faithfulness is validated through a human study with 24k annotations. We apply Fuse to 12 LLMs and demonstrate its analytical utility by systematically isolating key factors, showing that (i) user mediation compounds the inherent difficulty of social reasoning; (ii) LLMs exhibit systematic sensitivity to biased user framing; (iii) models can require more details than humans need to reach a correct prediction; and (iv) longer conversations do not always improve performance despite providing opportunities for clarifying questions. We open-source Fuse and a dataset with 21k examples.

Simulations based on large language models (LLMs) have proven to be powerful for understanding human behavior, making them valuable additions to the social scientific toolkit. However, LLMs are ultimately black boxes based on deep neural networks which limits their value for social science. This is because of a lack of (i) interpretability: i.e. the ability to assign clear mechanisms driving observed behavior; and a lack of (ii) steerability: i.e. the ability to mute or amplify specific theoretically meaningful mechanisms of action to drive specific model behavior. Here, we demonstrate how the black box could be opened up to further enrich LLM-based simulations. Specifically, we compare three types of methods: (1) prompt-based manipulation, (2) SAE-derived feature steering, and (3) probe-based direction steering and examine their utility for LLM-based social scientific simulations. We do so by interpreting and steering two foundational components of human behaviors, namely preferences (risk attitudes, altruism) and capabilities (divergent creativity, product innovation), operationalized using four classic economic and creative tasks implemented as natural-language interactions. Overall, our results show that SAE- and probe-based techniques often outperform basic prompt-based methods for steering LLM agents, although this advantage depends on the specific prompting strategy involved. Together, SAEs and probes constitute an effective pipeline for social scientists seeking to interpret and steer agents in social simulations: SAEs decompose agents' internal representations into human-readable features, after which probes can reliably shift agents' behaviors in specified directions. We discuss implications of these methods for future work using LLM agents for social scientific simulations.

Language-model agents are increasingly used as synthetic people in surveys and social simulations, yet their apparent realism is often judged from population averages or distributional similarity. We tested what such evidence actually establishes by comparing Claude, Codex and Kimi under four prespecified prompt designs with matched farmer decisions from China and four African countries. Some configurations reproduced observed means and adoption rates. However, their person-level predictions were weak; their decisions clustered around typical values and policy-relevant extremes were largely missing. Most strikingly, a simple generator fitted only to the observed marginal dis- tribution, and given no information about any farmer, achieved greater distributional similarity than every language-model configuration. Prompt additions produced conditional gains rather than uni- versal improvement: results varied with model, outcome, population and validation target. We call this the average-farmer illusion: a synthetic population can look realistic while failing to repro- duce who does what or how behaviour varies. We provide a claim-matched validation framework and reusable modular prompts that turn prompt construction into an auditable experimental process. Population-level resemblance should therefore be treated as the start of validation, not as evidence of individual simulation.

Simulated societies of large language model agents are used to study online polarization, and separately to study collective intelligence, but the two are rarely measured in the same system. It is therefore difficult to say whether a society's personality composition shapes both, or whether reducing polarization costs collective competence. We present TraitMix, an experimental design in which the Big Five composition of a simulated social network, both trait levels and trait heterogeneity, is a controlled experimental variable, and in which polarization and collective performance are measured in the same runs. Across 991 simulations of hundred-agent societies, spanning six contested topics and six language models, trait heterogeneity has the largest measured effects, acting in opposite directions on two faces of polarization: varied societies hold more dispersed opinions while being less segregated into camps, so homogeneous societies are not moderate but consensual echo chambers. Trait effects are not additive, as Agreeableness determines the sign of Openness, an interaction that replicates across models although the primary model's estimate is influence-driven. Contrary to the trade-off the study was designed to measure, no polarization measure predicts poorer collective performance, and cross-cutting interaction is the only one of four whose association with collective accuracy survives partialling on the aggregation identity. We report ablations removing two potential measurement circularities, an induction gate applied to every model, and the measures that failed them.

Multi-agent LLM deliberation has been explored as a scalable way to simulate public deliberation. For such simulations to be informative, persona agents should reflect population opinion patterns and interaction should shape their conclusions. We evaluate whether LLM-based deliberation can meet these two conditions using census-grounded Korean personas debating real policy questions benchmarked against national surveys. Persona agents do not reliably reproduce population opinion patterns: responses are often far more concentrated and frequently reverse demographic differences in the human data. Deliberations nonetheless produce reasoned, reciprocal, and varied arguments alongside substantial stance movement. Yet much of this movement does not require peer exchange: sealed-monologue agents change position at similar rates and reach nearly the same final balance as full debates, while groups initialized with very different positions often converge to similar endpoints. Anchoring population-informed starting positions, meanwhile, sharply suppresses updating. Thus, population representation, argument generation, and interaction-driven opinion change do not necessarily go together. The simulations readily surface arguments on both sides, though whether they capture the diversity of human perspectives remains untested, leaving open a promising role for argument surfacing even as population simulation requires further validation.

Large language models can produce locally plausible social turns, but fluent next-turn generation is not enough for social simulation. Human encounters such as restaurant lunches and hotel check-ins are bounded social episodes with roles, scripts, material state, obligations, commitments, timing, and closure conditions. We present EpisodeSim, a hybrid LLM-agent architecture that represents classic-AI structures as natural-language control state interpreted by LLM calls. A World Master maintains shared reality, constructs scenes, adjudicates proposed actions, tracks effects and obligations, and controls closure. Experiments with small qualitative ablations on two held-out settings support a design claim: LLM fluency supplies local texture, but coherent social simulation benefits from persistent classic-AI-style scaffolding that organizes behavior over time.

User behavior simulation with large language models~(LLMs) is increasingly used to support multi-agent ecosystem simulation. Existing simulators typically rely on static user profiles inferred from historical observations, which become inadequate in socially intensive environments such as live streaming where interaction dynamics continuously reshape user behavior. We propose \textbf{LiveSim}, an LLM-based framework for live-stream ecosystem simulation. It represents users as editable behavioral hypotheses and progressively refines them through trajectory-grounded interactions, where discrepancies between simulated and observed trajectories reveal missing environmental shaping effects. These signals are further extracted as transferable environment-behavior patterns and accumulated in a collective behavioral memory to improve user-level behavioral fidelity and support ecosystem-level simulation. Experiments on real-world live-stream risk-control data validate the effectiveness of LiveSim in improving user-level behavioral fidelity and enabling ecosystem-level analysis of risk evolution and platform intervention effects.

Large language models (LLMs) offer a scalable approach to social simulation, but their credibility depends on how agents are constructed. Existing methods can partially reproduce population-level patterns, yet often fail to capture human-like diversity. Our analysis shows that static-profile agents exhibit stronger demographic separation and within-group compression than humans, a pattern consistent with identity essentialism: demographic labels can encourage models to treat group-average tendencies as individual traits, homogenizing responses within groups. We argue that this limitation arises from two related factors: sparse, static agent representations and the limited ability of prompt-only memory to persistently integrate experience. Inspired by complementary memory systems, we propose LifeMem, a longitudinal memory framework that combines structured life-event retrieval with agent-specific parametric memory for experience integration. Experiments on Understanding Society with three LLMs show that LifeMem improves alignment with human data in terms of response distributions, overall and within-group diversity, and patterns of within-person response change across life stages. These findings highlight the value of longitudinal life-event memory for constructing more faithful and dynamically evolving social agents.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning for human-AI interaction typically relies on a single large language model to simulate user behavior. We show that this approach systematically fails to generalize, and trace the failure to simulator collapse: because the simulator LLM is mode-collapsed, an LLM policy trained against it overfits to narrow strategies that exploit the simulator's dominant mode, and such a policy transfers poorly to unseen simulators and real users. We formalize this collapse theoretically and propose two complementary solutions, one at inference time and one at training time. The inference-time solution, Verbalized Sampling, broadens the simulator's behavior by sampling from a verbalized response distribution, reducing mode collapse. The training-time solution, Co-Training, jointly optimizes the policy against a population of trainable simulators, preventing it from overfitting to any single simulator's mode. We validate both solutions on three multi-turn benchmarks: Persuasion for Good, $τ^2$-bench, and CooperBench. Verbalized Sampling improves held-out success by up to 9% over single-simulator RL, and Co-Training pushes gains further to 14%; the human study shows similar gain on real users. Both solutions preserve the policy diversity that collapses under single-simulator RL. To support further work in this direction, we release SCOPE, an open-source framework for Population Co-Training multi-agent RL. More broadly, our results suggest that the diversity of the training environment, not only the policy, is critical to the generalization of multi-turn RL to real-world deployment.

Online credit card discussions provide a natural setting for studying how consumers communicate about financial products. Simulating these discussions requires more than just generating individual comments, the generated threads should also match how real users express themselves and interact with others. We introduce CARD, a framework for generating realistic credit card discussion threads. Given a credit card post and its matched real thread, CARD uses non-verbatim guidance on reply structure, comment function, stance, tone, and conversational variation. A planner organizes these controls, a writer generates the discussion, and a calibration loop updates comments' populations that contribute to differences between the generated and real thread distributions. We evaluate CARD on real Reddit credit card discussions using lexical, semantic, behavioral, and structural metrics. CARD matches the distributions of real credit card discussions better than simulation baselines across multiple LLMs and also demonstrates smaller effect sizes and distribution distances across metrics. These results show that structured planning and targeted revision can generate the realism of simulated credit card discussions.

LLM agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent social settings where they must cooperate, negotiate, and adapt to other agents. Measuring and improving these social skills is hard because, unlike math or logic, social interaction offers no objective ground truth: evaluations fall back on LLM judges, which are costly, subjective, and noisy, and models get no reliable signal to learn from. To address both, we first introduce Social Gym, an environment of 21 multi-agent social games (e.g., Werewolves, Resistance, Spyfall) whose rule-decided outcomes make agent performance verifiable and objective, with an Elo tournament that produces a cross-game leaderboard. Benchmarking experiments show that while GPT-5-mini tops the leaderboard, no model excels at all games uniformly or in all game roles, pointing to limitations of social reasoning. Motivated by this, we additionally propose SPaRTan (Self-Play and Reflect-Transfer), a training-free self-improvement loop: a model plays a game, reflects on its trajectories and their outcomes to produce a transferable playbook, and applies that playbook in subsequent games. Our results show that SPaRTan playbooks help GPT-5-mini agents level their performance on weaker roles, but largely do not improve Qwen3-32B's performance. Together, Social Gym and SPaRTan offer a reproducible, verifiable foundation for measuring and improving LLM social reasoning without weight updates.

Predicting how a population will answer a new question is a long-standing goal. Statistical methods succeed at the level of the mass but falter at the level of the individual. Large language model simulators inherit this gap. They recover a population's central tendencies while flattening its heterogeneity, and they carry social biases and prompt brittleness that distort individual predictions. This paper introduces Anacreon, an audience simulation model that targets the individual level within a narrow, well-specified domain. Anacreon learns an authorship embedding that separates individuals, clusters a real qualitative corpus around seed people, and trains a dedicated adapter for each cluster, a mixture of minds, on a Gemma~4 12B base. It harvests demographics, psychological traits, and survey responses from public text, and augments each record with a chain-of-emotion. It reduces prompt brittleness by shuffling response options and reduces positive bias by balancing the training distribution. On a large, externally sourced survey, Anacreon reaches a state-of-the-art ordinal alignment of 0.775, the individual-level accuracy measure on which the field has converged, with a small residual bias. The work is a step toward drawing aggregate insight from faithfully simulated individuals.

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate human opinions, but prior work reports conflicting results: some studies find promising alignment with human survey data, while others find persona collapse and weak demographic sensitivity. We propose that much of this conflict stems from conflating two distinct tasks. We call the first task emulation, in which models generate individual responses that aggregate into a population distribution. We call the second task estimation, in which models directly predict the population distribution. Evaluating six matched base and post-trained models on the Pew American Trends Panel, we find that base models are the stronger emulators: they produce response distributions closer to human ground truth and better preserve demographic structure. Post-trained models are generally the stronger estimators, producing more accurate distributional predictions when asked directly. We argue that model selection for human simulation should be guided by whether the task requires generating text or predicting distributions.

LLM-based multi-agent systems are increasingly used to simulate social dynamics, from opinion formation to collective decision-making. These simulations can reproduce certain social phenomena, but it is unknown whether they capture pluralistic ignorance, a state where a majority privately rejects a norm yet publicly conforms, each believing they are alone in dissenting. This phenomenon drives norm persistence, social movements, and political revolutions. We show that pluralistic ignorance emerges robustly in LLM agent populations. We construct a benchmark of 100 scenarios across 10 domains and 5 authority levels, grounded in the human pluralistic ignorance literature, and evaluate 8 models from 6 organizations. Agents publicly conform at rates of 64 to 94% despite privately opposing the norm. Conformity is domain-sensitive (workplace and social relationship scenarios produce near-universal compliance) and highly model-dependent, though uncorrelated with capability. We test whether a single "norm entrepreneur" can break the false consensus by publicly dissenting. For 7 of 8 models, cascades succeed less than 26% of the time, with one model showing zero cascades across all scenarios. GPT-4o is a notable outlier at 48%, revealing qualitatively distinct dynamics across model families. A prompt component ablation across all 8 models establishes that conformity is emergent rather than instruction-driven: removing both the false-consensus framing and fit-in goal reduces conformity but does not eliminate it (52 to 92% in the minimal condition). Our findings identify model selection as an unacknowledged degree of freedom that fundamentally shapes simulation outcomes. More broadly, the near-absence of cascades suggests LLM simulations may systematically overestimate the stability of social norms, missing the fragile tipping-point dynamics that drive real-world norm change in human societies.

Social dynamics encode the process in which individual network and discourse interactions aggregate into collective influence, narrative dominance and coordinate behavior. This paper uses the the GhostField architecture, a hybrid LLM-Enabled Agent Based Network-Dynamic (LAND) model as a social simulation framework to build the AuraSight scenario. In the AuraSight scenario, 314,244 heterogeneous cyber social agents and human actors exchange 529,327 messages over 30 days surrounding a fictional international song-writing contest. We methodologically examine emergent social dynamics across four analytical layers: ego-network topology, semantic network evolution, coordination dynamics and influence dynamics. Our results show how generated social simulations do also produce social dynamics, and how the dynamics of coordination and influence emerge not from individual agents but from the recursive interaction between network topology and narrative exchange.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as proxies for human study participants in social science experiments, yet the fidelity of this practice has rarely been tested directly. We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates, comparing LLM outputs 1-to-1 against ground truth data from 391 UK participants on Prolific, who updated their stances on three discussion topics after reading Reddit comments. Each participant was simulated by an LLM conditioned on a persona derived from their demographic and personality trait data. We find that some LLMs (Qwen3-32B and GPT-5-Mini) can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' actual initial stances. All six models fail to simulate initial stances themselves and to produce faithful belief updates from self-generated stances. Three systematic biases emerge across all models: overrepresentation of neutral positions, more frequent but smaller belief shifts than humans, and a failure to rank comments by convincingness. Demographic and personality trait personas had no consistent effect on fidelity. LLM simulations of human belief dynamics are only reliable when grounded in realistic starting conditions, that current multi-round social media simulations rarely provide.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent environments. However, the processes by which beliefs form and propagate among interacting LLMs remain poorly understood. We introduce CoevolveSim, a framework for studying belief diffusion within networked LLM populations. CoevolveSim allows us to isolate and study three factors: domain specialization, social-role assignment, and social network structure. Within this framework, generalist and specialist LLM agents exchange and revise beliefs. In each round, an LLM agent observes a summary of its neighbors' beliefs before updating its own. We run 1,280 controlled simulations spanning four scenarios, two network structures, and 20 medical-indication statements. We find that persona-style role assignment and network structure reshape individual belief revision but have minimal effect on population-level consensus. In contrast, introducing (finetuned) specialist LLMs more than doubles the shift in consensus and gives rise to consistent asymmetries in exerted influence. We further show that simple persistence-based opinion-dynamics models reproduce collective outcomes in all-generalist LLM populations, whereas heterogeneous LLM populations require population-level belief composition to reproduce consensus and agent identity to predict individual belief transitions. Our results indicate that realistic simulation of belief diffusion in multi-agent LLM systems requires a diverse set of underlying LLMs, not persona prompting alone.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We publicly release the cross-domain benchmark and validation framework, including all code and data, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

Large language models are increasingly used as social simulators, including as synthetic survey respondents. Most evaluations ask whether simulated outcomes resemble human outcomes. We argue that this is necessary but too weak: a simulator can match the final answer while using the wrong rationale-derived reason pattern. We study this problem through a 94-person sunscreen concept test in which each respondent evaluated three product concepts and wrote open-ended rationales. We map those rationales into signed reason states $Z$, where positive signs support adoption and negative signs block it. This gives a practical audit: holding respondent descriptors $D$, category context $K$, and concept treatment $X$ fixed, do human rationale-derived reasons help predict behavior $Y$, and can an LLM simulate the same reason state without seeing the human rationale or outcome? Human rationale-derived reasons substantially improve held-out prediction of purchase intent. LLM-simulated reasons are more brittle: they often sound plausible, but frequently echo the concept board rather than recover the respondent's acceptance or rejection path. The paper contributes an evaluation framework for social simulators. Reason states do not identify natural causal effects by themselves, but they provide an interpretable test of whether a simulator's stated reasons align with human evidence.

Large language model (LLM) agents offer a generative approach to simulating human behavior under conditions that may have few or no direct historical analogues, a common challenge in disaster and infrastructure-disruption planning. However, this generative capacity creates a validity problem: individually plausible agent reasoning may fail to reproduce empirical population behavior. We evaluate whether empirical grounding improves the statistical realism of LLM-agent simulations during disruptions. Specifically, we develop an empirically grounded LLM-agent framework that embeds demographic profiles from the American Community Survey, baseline routines from the American Time Use Survey, and urban spatial context into agent initialization, memory, decision prompts, and activity execution. An independent household survey conducted during the July 2024 Philadelphia heatwave is reserved as an external validation benchmark. Compared with an ungrounded LLM-agent baseline, the grounded model improved reconstruction of normal daily routines, increasing mean correlation with empirical activity profiles from 0.528 to 0.912 and reducing mean squared error from 0.066 to 0.008. Under heatwave conditions, the grounded model better reproduced survey-derived activity profiles, increasing mean correlation from 0.349 to 0.836 and reducing mean squared error from 0.098 to 0.012. The grounded model captured 46.4% of observed heatwave response amplitude, compared with 20.6% for the ungrounded baseline. These findings show that empirical grounding can make LLM agents more statistically credible simulators of population behavior while revealing remaining gaps in modeling human adaptation during disruptions.

Simulating societies of many large language model (LLM) agents is expensive, yet the questions asked of such simulations are usually macroscopic: phase behaviour, stylised facts, and scaling with the number of agents $N$, not the cognition of any single agent. We turn a statistical-physics observation into a method: replace each LLM agent by a low-parameter model fitted from a few hundred to a few thousand cheap queries, then run the society at any $N$ on a laptop. Whether this works is decided before the simulation runs, chiefly by what each agent perceives. We introduce an [interaction order x memory] taxonomy that maps perception and memory to an effective theory and a predicted $N$-trend of the surrogate error. We validate it on a faithful reimplementation of the LLM macroeconomy EconAgent and seven further named LLM simulations, with agent decisions cloned from genuine LLM elicitations (primarily DeepSeek) for a few dollars; the predicted error trends hold cell by cell, and the two refuted predictions, both on a strongly saturating response and traced to its curvature, are themselves matched quantitatively by the theory with no free parameters.

Synthetic-population tools increasingly run every individual as an independent large language model (LLM) agent. Using real survey microdata, we show that this paradigm has a basic failure mode, and we set a distribution-first corrective against it, all measured with a deterministic, construct-validated verifier on non-WEIRD (Turkey-first) data. First, N independent LLM agents grounded on 2,414 real World Values Survey respondents fail to reproduce the population's response distribution: they pile onto a modal default (four scenarios x five seeds: concentration 0.36->0.69, entropy 1.46->0.77, 85% collapse, TVD=0.44), and the collapse is a predictable function of scenario structure (r=0.55 with a single-answer structure). Second, Verbalized Sampling (VS) fixes the field's chronic under-dispersion without training in three model families (fidelity +7 to +10; significant on Qwen, p=0.002, d=6.2), yet the same move universally overshoots into over-dispersion (SD-ratio 0.4-0.56 -> 1.26-1.37), a structural property of VS. Third, survey fidelity transfers only weakly to agentic behavior: in a single-model, single-domain booking task, a persona is dominated by a cheapest-default (~80%) that income modulates but does not override (comfort choice 0%->7%->32% across income bands). Fourth, a placebo-controlled memorization attack and an election backtest show VS keeps aggregate strength while subgroup and individual claims are contaminated by recall and underdetermination. We close with the corrective: model the distribution once (VS) and assign it to grounded characters at O(1) cost, with a budget-aware router whose honest AUC is 0.805, not the tautological 1.0 of a code-derived oracle. The central contribution needs no realism claim: it measures the internal inconsistency of the independent-agent route and the conditions under which the distribution-first route calibrates.

Large language model (LLM)-based generative agents simulate human behavior through long-horizon decision-making processes that comprise intermediate steps such as planning, memory retrieval, reflection, and action selection. However, fine-grained human annotations of these intermediate steps remain scarce, and existing agents are not grounded in human preferences over such intermediate decisions. To address this gap, we introduce \method, an interactive simulation interface that enables us to collect step-level human preference supervision over agent decision trajectories, leading to a dataset of 57K fine-grained annotations. We conduct step-level preference learning on open-weight language models using supervised finetuning and direct preference optimization on this data, consistently improving simulation fidelity, coordination, and interaction quality, and inducing more socially effective agent behavior. Our results show that step-level human supervision is an effective training signal for improving both local decision quality and long-horizon agent behavior.

This book chapter covers the evolution of social simulation from classical agent-based models, in which agents interact according to explicitly defined behavioral rules, to AI-enhanced simulations based on Large Language Models and, ultimately, Social Digital Twins: high-fidelity, data-driven representations of real-world socio-technical systems. Along this trajectory, we discuss the main methodological foundations, applications, advantages, and limitations of each paradigm, highlighting the progressive shift from abstract models designed to investigate general social mechanisms toward increasingly realistic computational representations of specific social systems.

Recent LLM-based multi-agent urban simulators can generate semantically rich city routines, but they remain costly to scale and are often weakly validated against empirical mobility patterns. We present CityBehavEx, an interactive LLM-assisted urban simulation platform that scales to city-size populations, exposes agent behavior for inspection, supports empirical validation, and generates mobility patterns that better match real-world spatial, temporal, and semantic distributions. Instead of invoking large language models for every agent action, CityBehavEx combines established human mobility models with fine-tuned cross-encoders that estimate semantic alignment between agent profiles, schedules, and activity transitions. This design enables large-scale simulations, as demonstrated in a case study of 100,000 agents over 75 days in under one hour on a single consumer GPU. The platform allows users to define simulation regions, launch experiments, inspect trajectories and activity traces, debug unrealistic behaviors, and validate generated routines against real-world mobility, time-use, and semantic metrics.