Cited by 59Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorEthics and Social Impacts of AI

User Behavior Simulation with Large Language Model-based Agents

Wang, Lei, Zhang, Jingsen, Yang, Hao, Chen, Zhi-Yuan, Tang, Jiakai, Zhang, Zeyu, Chen, Xu, Lin, Yankai +7 more·2025·ACM Transactions on Information Systems

Abstract

Simulating high quality user behavior data has always been a fundamental yet challenging problem in human-centered applications such as recommendation systems, social networks, among many others. The major difficulty of user behavior simulation originates from the intricate mechanism of human cognitive and decision processes. Recently, substantial evidence has suggested that by learning huge amounts of web knowledge, large language models (LLMs) can achieve human-like intelligence and generalization capabilities. Inspired by such capabilities, in this article, we take an initial step to study the potential of using LLMs for user behavior simulation in the recommendation domain. To make LLMs act like humans, we design profile, memory and action modules to equip them, building LLM-based agents to simulate real users. To enable interactions between different agents and observe their behavior patterns, we design a sandbox environment, where each agent can interact with the recommendation system, and different agents can converse with their friends via one-to-one chatting or one-to-many social broadcasting. In the experiments, we first demonstrate the believability of the agent-generated behaviors based on both subjective and objective evaluations. Then, to show the potential applications of our method, we simulate and study two social phenomena including (1) information cocoons and (2) user conformity behaviors. We find that controlling the personalization degree of recommendation algorithms and improving the heterogeneity of user social relations can be two effective strategies for alleviating the problem of information cocoon, and the conformity behaviors can be highly influenced by the amount of user social relations. To advance this direction, we have released our project at https://github.com/RUC-GSAI/YuLan-Rec .

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3708985

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, L., Zhang, J., Yang, H., Chen, Z.-Y., Tang, J., Zhang, Z., Chen, X., Lin, Y., Sun, H., Song, R., Zhao, X., Xu, J., Dou, Z., Wang, J., & Wen, J.-R.
Affiliations
  • Renmin University of China (CN)
  • School of Information, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
  • University College London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Venue
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
Published
2025-01-28
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
1-37
ISSN
  • 1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2868
OpenAlex
W4405643789
Cited by
59
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 1
FWCI
22.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
user behavior simulation, LLM agents, recommender systems, agent-based modeling, sandbox, information cocoons, social networks, personalization, agent believability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review