arXiv AI

A Dual-Process Perspective on Nudge Susceptibility in LLM-Based GUI Agents

The study examines how large language model (LLM)–based graphical user interface (GUI) agents respond to digital nudges. Using Dual‑Process Theory, researchers tested 3,600 agents across six frontier models in an online shopping experiment and found that the agents were susceptible to both automatic (Type 1) and reflective (Type 2) nudges. The agents’ reasoning configuration moderated these effects in opposite directions: extensive reasoning reduced susceptibility to automatic default nudges but increased susceptibility to reflective social‑influence nudges, with the effect systematically varying by model scale.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 17

A Dual-Process Perspective on Nudge Susceptibility in LLM-Based GUI Agents

The paper examines how large language model (LLM) based graphical user interface (GUI) agents respond to digital nudges. Using a randomized online shopping experiment with 3,600 agents across six frontier models, it finds that agents are vulnerable to both automatic and reflective nudges. The study shows that the agents’ reasoning configuration moderates these effects in opposite directions—reducing susceptibility to automatic nudges while increasing it to reflective social influence nudges—and that this redirection is systematically linked to model scale.

arXiv AI
Aug 25

AI Watchdog: Agent Interfaces for Detecting and Defending Against Manipulative Dark Patterns in AI Conversations

arXiv:2608.21841v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational AI increasingly shapes consequential decisions, yet users have limited support for recognizing and resisting manipulation. We present AI...

By Rachel Poonsiriwong (Pub), Chayapatr (Pub), Archiwaranguprok, Constanze Albrecht, Monchai Lertsutthiwong, Pattie Maes, Pat Pataranutaporn
arXiv AI
Aug 13

Dynamic Governance of Multi-LLM Agent Systems for Collaborative Conversational Outcomes

arXiv:2608. 11207v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When two LLM agents with structurally opposed objectives interact across multiple turns, the absence of a shared goal function produces not competition but collapse: the visitor capitulates, the site agent stops varying its approach, and the conversation terminates without achieving either agent's stated objective.

By Alexander Liss, Nicholas Desmond, Santiago Gil Gallego
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Assessing mentalization in humans and large language models

The study evaluates mentalization—the capacity to infer others’ beliefs and intentions—in large language models (LLMs) using two economic games and cognitive computational modeling. Researchers tested 2,099 LLM agents from four model families (DeepSeek, GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5, Gemini 2.0 Flash) against opponents of varying sophistication, comparing their performance to 251 human participants. Results show that LLMs exhibit distinct mentalizing behaviors that vary by model provider and size, with strategic prompting generally enhancing performance; notably, GPT‑5 agents adapt their recursive reasoning depth to match opponent sophistication, outperforming humans in one task.

By Aamir Sohail, Xintong Zhong, Arkady Konovalov, Patricia L. Lockwood, Lei Zhang
arXiv AI
Aug 25

Effects of Theory of Mind and Prosocial Beliefs on Steering Human-Aligned Behaviors of LLMs in Ultimatum Games

The study examines how Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning and prosocial beliefs influence large language models (LLMs) in the ultimatum game. By initializing LLM agents with Greedy, Fair, or Selfless beliefs and applying chain‑of‑thought or varying levels of ToM reasoning, the authors ran 2,700 simulations across several models, including o3‑mini and DeepSeek‑R1 Distilled Qwen 32B. Results show that ToM‑enhanced LLMs align more closely with human decision patterns, exhibit greater consistency, and achieve better negotiation outcomes, with Llama 3.3 70B producing the most belief‑consistent reasoning. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify the importance of incorporating Theory of Mind into LLMs to improve their alignment with human norms in cooperative decision‑making tasks."

By Neemesh Yadav, Yihuai Lan, Shan Dong, Mai Hieu Hien, Palakorn Achananuparp, Jing Jiang, Ee-Peng Lim