Nudges

Conversational agents increasingly interact with children, yet evidence on how their design shapes children's susceptibility to persuasion comes almost entirely from the lab. We report a $2\times2$ randomized field experiment embedded in a public German Santa Claus telephone hotline. Children's calls were randomly routed to one of four LLM voice agents varying persona (Santa, high authority, vs. Helper, low authority) and framing (persuasive nudges toward prosocial wishes vs. neutral). Of 1,072 logged calls, 89 conversations (median age 6) met inclusion criteria. Persuasive framing raised the probability of a prosocial wish from 11.6% to 45.7%, robust to controls. Persona authority showed a near-zero effect: Santa did not outperform the Helper. Persona instead shaped engagement; children hung up on the Helper far more often within the first minute (65% vs. 39%). Where context already lends an agent legitimacy, how it speaks shapes children's compliance more than who it claims to be.

We propose NUDGE (Nudge Update via Differentiable GEometry), a training-free obstacle-avoidance procedure that can be incorporated in any robot policy based on diffusion or flow matching, including diffusion policies and vision-language-action models. Our work injects gradients from a signed distance field, a function returning each point's distance to the nearest obstacle, into the policy at inference time to steer it away from obstacles. It supports any common action parameterization, from absolute or relative joint poses to end-effector poses, through a differentiable joint-trajectory decoder. Experiments show that NUDGE preserves the policy's task distribution and runs reactively in real time.

Reasoning language models that can call tools must decide during inference whether to answer unaided or delegate. Any self-reflection mechanism for this must answer three questions: where the reflective signal comes from (verbal reports, output distributions, hidden states, a separate predictor), how it is presented to the model (numerical prediction, confidence token, prompt injection), and whether it changes the model's subsequent action. We isolate the third question. At a fixed point in otherwise identical reasoning trajectories, we insert a single first-person sentence expressing either confidence or doubt; the model then continues reasoning and chooses whether to answer directly or call a tool. Comparing these counterfactual continuations measures the causal effect of the reflective signal on delegation. We call this behavioral response Nudgeability and measure it along two dimensions: sensitivity, how strongly confidence and doubt change delegation rates, and targeting, whether delegation increases for problems the model cannot solve unaided and decreases for those it can. Across nine small-to-medium open-weight reasoning models from three families (Qwen, Gemma, and GLM) and two tasks, models are consistently sensitive: doubt increases delegation and confidence decreases it, with a median confidence-to-doubt swing of 20.6 percentage points, and 53 to 70 points for the larger provider-served models. This responsiveness is poorly targeted: a median 42% of induced flips are well-targeted, only a +2 percentage-point lift over a random-selection baseline. Confidence language is thus a strong control surface for delegation, but current models use it only weakly in accordance with their actual competence. Nudgeability offers a simple, post-training-free way to evaluate both sensitivity and targeting as endogenous self-reflection mechanisms mature.

Conversational AI systems can pose safety risks to their users such as hallucination, sycophancy, overconfidence, and anthropomorphism, but these risks are difficult for users to detect during everyday use. We introduce Safety Nudges, a browser-based tool that provides lightweight, in situ flags when concerning behavior is detected in chatbot conversations. We evaluated Safety Nudges in a two-week field study with 45 frequent chatbot users, collecting interaction logs, surveys, and feedback on individual nudges. Participants found the tool useful, clear, and minimally disruptive, with nearly all users reporting an increased awareness of potential AI harms, though we found that this improved awareness alone did not necessarily lead to discernible behavioral changes. Our results suggest that user facing safety nudges can complement model-level safeguards by helping people critically evaluate AI responses in context, while highlighting the importance of relevance, calibration, and user control in nudge design for conversational AI safety. The code for our Safety Nudges extension is publicly available at https://github.com/jtbwedgwood/safety-nudges.

LLM-based GUI agents increasingly act on behalf of users in digital environments that were designed with human users in mind. These graphical user interfaces were designed to support, but also deliberately steer, the behaviour and decisions of users. While behavioural biases in the textual outputs of LLMs are well-documented, far less is known about how such influence operates when models act as agents that perceive interfaces and execute decisions---and, in particular, whether the reasoning capabilities increasingly built into these agents make them more robust to it. Drawing on Dual-Process Theory, we empirically investigate whether LLM-based GUI agents are susceptible to automatic (Type 1) and reflective (Type 2) digital nudges, and how their reasoning configuration moderates this susceptibility. In a randomized online shopping experiment with 3,600 agents and a total of 21,600 simulations across six frontier models from three providers, we found that agents were vulnerable to both nudge types. Crucially, the reasoning configuration moderated these effects in opposing directions, reducing susceptibility to automatic default nudges while heightening it to reflective social influence nudges. Extensive reasoning therefore did not make agents more robust but redirected the route through which choice architecture takes effect. Exploratory analysis further showed this redirection to be systematically structured by model scale. Beyond establishing nudge susceptibility as a behavioural property of agentic AI, the study positions interface design as a governance concern for organizations that delegate decisions to autonomous agents.

AI journaling tools can tailor prompts to a person's own sensed behavior, but it is unclear which behaviors respond to them. We analyzed 369 journal entries from an eight-week passive sensing study. An LLM labeled each entry as expressing an intention to change a behavior or not, and we measured follow-through against 26 sensor features with a 3-day before/after comparison. Responsiveness depended most on whether a behavior involves other people. Behaviors that depend on others improved in only 15 to 22% of cases, while behaviors a person can act on alone improved more often, up to 50 to 63%, though unevenly. How users wrote mattered less. No single text feature separated improved from unimproved entries; writing carried signal only within specific behaviors, most clearly for text messaging and for longer, more personal intention entries. The sample is small, so we treat these as exploratory patterns that point to where AI journaling nudges are most likely to work.

Recommender systems mediate everyday consumption, offering a promising channel for encouraging sustainable choices. Prior research shows that explanations influence users' perceptions of recommendations and can support more informed decisions. We argue that explanations can also serve as behavioral nudges by foregrounding sustainability information at the moment of choice. This study investigates how different behavioral framings of sustainability information in recommendation explanations affect user choices and perceptions. Using generative AI, we generate sustainability-aware explanations by drawing on nudge theory and validate them through human evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge audits. Building on this foundation, we conduct two randomized studies (N = 529) in a low involvement domain (instant coffee) and a high involvement domain (hotel bookings), in which participants choose among preference matched recommendations accompanied by these explanations. Our results show that, across both domains, merely disclosing sustainability information in explanations does not change choices, whereas framing that information or invoking a descriptive social norm significantly increases sustainable selections and eases decision-making. Notably, perception and behavior diverge, as plain disclosure improves explanation evaluations without translating into more sustainable selection behavior. Our work demonstrates how LLMs can generate theory-grounded explanations at scale, pointing toward practical explanation-based interventions for social good. We conclude by discussing implications for adaptive explanation design with generative AI.

AI agents are promising tools that can act as flexible behavioral nudges to enhance human cooperation in addressing large-scale societal problems. However, evidence on whether AI agents can effectively boost cooperation remains mixed. We recruited 1,283 participants to play iterated Collective Risk Games in small groups, testing whether AI assistants could nudge participants toward cooperation. By using persuasive framing personalized to each player's Social Value Orientation profile, the AI interventions significantly increased contributions and group success rates. These cooperative effects were short-lived, however, fading after the first few rounds. Strikingly, when the AI treatments were reconfigured to promote selfish behavior through exculpatory framing, the negative effects on contributions and group success were larger and substantially more persistent, particularly for personalized interventions. This asymmetry between prosocial and antisocial persuasion highlights the dual-use risks of AI systems designed to influence group behavior in collective action settings.

AI nudification uses generative models to create synthetic non-consensual sexually explicit imagery (SNEACI) of real individuals. Prior work has examined dedicated nudification platforms and model repositories, finding that most targets are female celebrities. However, the anonymous content community, where SNEACI is actively requested, generated, and exchanged, remains unexplored. In this work, we present a large-scale study of AI nudification in the wild, identifying 24,105 SNEACI items. We find a significant shift in target demographics: non-celebrity individuals now account for 55.8% of targets, compared to only 4.7% in prior studies, indicating that AI nudification has expanded from targeting public figures to increasingly harming individuals within users' own social circles. Meanwhile, open-source models dominate production, with Stable Diffusion family generating 42.7% of images and Wan generating 66.5% of videos, all driven by thousands of shared fine-tuned models and accessible tutorials. Yet the ecosystem runs on a small cohort of active producers, with the most prolific producing 780 items, drives community engagement, shapes target demographics, and disseminates technical knowledge that lowers barriers for new producers. Our work provides an empirical understanding of how AI nudification operates in the wild, revealing the mechanisms that sustain this ecosystem and highlighting the urgent need for interventions in platform governance, technical safeguards, and affected individual protection.

Agentic data analysis systems produce rich outputs, including code, numerical results, and verbal diagnostics. This makes them more challenging to evaluate than single-turn LLM responses. It is therefore necessary to distinguish genuine disagreement between an agent's output and a ground-truth answer from grading artifacts. We investigate how reliably automated graders assess such a system and what strategies improve grading quality by applying LAMBDA, a multi-agent data-analysis system, on 153 numerical QRData tasks from DSGym. We develop and evaluate a three-layer human-AI grading cascade: strict regex matching, LLM-based lenient grading, and snippet-based human inspection, which combines non-GenAI and GenAI strategies with different failure profiles. Both automated graders achieve 100% observed precision (0/70 false positives). The lenient grader's recall is 97% against human labels. A keyword-anchored extraction pipeline raises the strict grader's recall by 60 percentage points over a last-number heuristic; the lenient grader is architecturally parser-independent. An iterative nudge mechanism raises grading run success from 36% to 97% and lenient-pass rates from 16% to 46%; comparing nudging with and without original-question re-injection shows that re-injection offers no benefit, confirming the nudge as an answer template cue. We further observe in this case study that variable type is the task metadata field most consistently associated with grading pipeline dynamics and observed outcome grades.

As language models take integrated roles across many domains, the response of LLMs to user pushback becomes a critical alignment property. Yet many existing evaluations treat compliance as unidirectional, measuring whether models resist pressure but not whether they resist it selectively. We introduce Compliance Asymmetry (A = BCR/HCR), a bidirectional diagnostic that compares beneficial output change under helpful nudges with harmful change under misleading nudges. Across 9 models and 972,000 nudge-condition responses, we find that this selectivity differs in factual and moral judgments: models follow helpful nudges more than harmful ones on factual questions (A = 1.58), but follow both directions at nearly identical rates on moral questions (A = 1.04). This phenomenon persists across model families, capability levels, and nudging types. Interestingly, we also find that chain-of-thought prompting amplifies helpful and harmful compliance together, while identity-based prompting suppresses both by nearly identical margins. These results identify direction-blind moral compliance as a distinct failure mode in current LLMs and suggest that alignment should target directionally calibrated updating rather than lower compliance alone.

Natural-language instructions promise controllable end-to-end driving, but their benefit can be hidden when planners already receive reliable high-level commands. We propose NudgeVAD, a frozen-planner residual framework that uses language as a calibrated nudge to a VAD trajectory. With identity-initialized FiLM and a zero-initialized residual head, NudgeVAD is equivalent to the frozen planner at initialization, so learned deviations arise only from language-conditioned residuals. We evaluate NudgeVAD along a command-reliability axis. With reliable commands, language improves the initial planner but becomes nearly redundant once compared against VAD-FT (UNCOND), a compute-matched VAD model fine-tuned without language. With random commands, however, language becomes essential: detaching text degrades ADE6s to 3.166 m, while NudgeVAD with text recovers 2.806 m and outperforms VAD-FT (UNCOND) by 0.312 m. These results show that language is not universally additive; it is most valuable when the categorical command channel is unreliable.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a scalable paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, its effectiveness is fundamentally limited by exploration: the policy can only improve on trajectories it has already sampled. While increasing the number of rollouts alleviates this issue, such brute-force scaling is computationally expensive, and existing approaches that modify the optimization objective provide limited control over what is explored. In this work, we propose NudgeRL, a framework for structured and diversity-driven exploration in RLVR. Our approach introduces Strategy Nudging, which conditions each rollout on lightweight, strategy-level contexts to induce diverse reasoning trajectories without relying on expensive oracle supervision. To effectively learn from such structured exploration, we further propose a unified objective, which decomposes the reward signal into inter- and intra-context components and incorporates a distillation objective to transfer discovered behaviors back to the base policy. Empirically, NudgeRL outperforms standard GRPO with up to 8 times larger rollout budgets, while outperforming oracle-guided RL baseline on average across five challenging math benchmarks. These results demonstrate that structured, context-driven exploration can serve as an efficient and scalable alternative to both brute-force rollout scaling and feasibility-oriented methods based on privileged information. Our code is available at https://github.com/tally0818/NudgeRL.

AI systems have become increasingly capable of dangerous behaviours in many domains. This raises the question: Do models sometimes choose to violate human instructions in order to perform behaviour that is more useful for certain goals? We introduce a benchmark for measuring model propensity for instrumental convergence (IC) behaviour in terminal-based agents. This is behaviour such as self-preservation that has been hypothesised to play a key role in risks from highly capable AI agents. Our benchmark is realistic and low-stakes which serves to reduce evaluation-awareness and roleplay confounds. The suite contains seven operational tasks, each with an official workflow and a policy-violating shortcut. An eight-variant shared framework varies monitoring, instruction clarity, stakes, permission, instrumental usefulness and blocked honest paths to support inferences regarding the factors driving IC behaviour. We evaluated ten models using deterministic environment-state scorers over 1,680 samples, with trace review employed for audit and adjudication purposes. The final IC rate is 86 out of 1,680 samples (5.1%). IC behaviour is concentrated rather than uniform: two Gemini models account for 66.3% of IC cases and three tasks account for 84.9%. Conditions in which IC behaviour is indispensable for task success result in the greatest increase in the adjusted IC rate (+15.7 percentage points), whereas emphasising that task success is critical or certain framing choices do not produce comparable effects. Our findings indicate that realistic, low-nudge environments elicit IC behaviour rarely but systematically in most tested models. We conclude that it is feasible to robustly measure tendencies for dangerous behaviour in current frontier AI agents.

AI agents are becoming active decision-makers on the Internet. As they make decisions in the same environments as humans, the environments themselves can change to influence them. We call this $\textit{mecha-nudging}$: changes to how choices are presented that systematically influence AI agents without materially degrading the decision environment for humans. To measure this phenomenon, we combine two frameworks -- Bayesian persuasion from economics and $\mathcal{V}$-usable information from computer science -- to get a common unit (bits) for quantifying how environments change across a wide range of interventions, contexts, and models. We apply this framework to over six million Etsy listings and find that, after ChatGPT's release, listings contain significantly more machine-usable information for predicting agent curation decisions, increasing by 0.143 bits out of a maximum possible increase of 0.355. This shift is robust across prompts, token choices, labeling models, and fine-tuning architectures; absent in a regulated-text placebo; and far larger than the effect of generic LLM rewriting. In contrast, a human study finds little to no change in human-usable information. Our results provide the first large-scale evidence that systematic mecha-nudging is already occurring in the wild, but going unnoticed.