The paper presents an AI-based method that uses a large language model to emulate human decision-making by assigning it a "type vector" describing traits such as Altruism and Risk Aversion. By varying these dimensions and values, the authors fit the model to over 119,000 decisions from 78,657 participants in 10 classic economic games, finding that three dimensions—Risk Aversion, Strategic Sophistication, and Trust—sufficiently capture human behavior. The resulting type clusters, fewer than a dozen, predict behavior in new games, suggesting a low-dimensional, portable representation of human behavior across diverse settings.
arXiv:2608.18265v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We introduce a general, easy-to-implement AI-based method for modeling and analyzing the structure and complexity of human behavior. We assig...
The paper presents an AI-based method that models human behavior by assigning a language model a vector of trait intensities—called a type vector—and asking it to predict actions in various settings. By adjusting traits such as Altruism, Risk Aversion, Fairness, and Trust, the authors fit the model to 119,147 decisions from 78,657 subjects across 35 countries and 10 economic games, finding that three dimensions (Risk Aversion, Strategic Sophistication, and Trust) closely match human choices. The resulting type vectors cluster into fewer than a dozen groups and can predict behavior in new games with different rules, demonstrating the method’s generalizability and interpretability.
arXiv:2511. 04500v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences.
The paper introduces the Preference-Behavior Model (PBM), which jointly infers Large Language Model (LLM) preferences and imperfect decision-making mechanisms from observed choices. By applying PBM to three social dilemma games—Public Goods, Collective-Risk, and Common-Pool Resource—the authors show that preferences derived from one dilemma can predict behavior in others, whereas traditional behavioral economic elicitation instruments fail to do so consistently. The study also evaluates how well inferred preferences align with persona instructions, revealing both broad agreement and specific divergences across dimensions, LLMs, and games.
arXiv:2606. 17657v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: People make decisions differently in strategic interactions.
arXiv:2608. 12125v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLM-based agents with user-instructed goals are becoming widely deployed, they increasingly encounter each other in strategic interactions, and face challenges of finding mutually beneficial outcomes.
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.
arXiv:2601. 19082v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents that negotiate, coordinate, and act on behalf of users.
arXiv:2607. 11632v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human choice behavior, including route choice, exhibits systematic behavioral biases that deviate from the assumptions of full rationality.
The paper presents an agent designed for the GLEE Competition that engages in bargaining, negotiation, and persuasion games against human and AI opponents. The agent combines a classical game‑theoretic solver, an online Bayesian layer for estimating opponent archetypes, and a language model for generating messages. Experiments include 13,200 Monte Carlo games against 11 synthetic archetypes, an ablation study of the opponent‑modeling layer, and an analysis of 9,337 live‑game messages showing a strong correlation between moral rhetoric framing and buyer purchase decisions.
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."
The paper introduces SILICA, an open instrument designed to evaluate whether large language model (LLM) agent societies replicate human behavioural distributions. Using five environments with human‑anchored data and perturbations, the study finds that most LLMs only match human behaviour at initial stages, failing to reproduce end‑state cooperation or correct acceptance thresholds. The results suggest that current LLM societies can support exploratory claims but do not yet reliably emulate human social dynamics.