Generative Agent-Based Modeling: Unveiling Social System Dynamics through Coupling Mechanistic Models with Generative Artificial Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
We discuss the emerging new opportunity for building feedback-rich computational models of social systems using generative artificial intelligence. Referred to as Generative Agent-Based Models (GABMs), such individual-level models utilize large language models such as ChatGPT to represent human decision-making in social settings. We provide a GABM case in which human behavior can be incorporated in simulation models by coupling a mechanistic model of human interactions with a pre-trained large language model. This is achieved by introducing a simple GABM of social norm diffusion in an organization. For educational purposes, the model is intentionally kept simple. We examine a wide range of scenarios and the sensitivity of the results to several changes in the prompt. We hope the article and the model serve as a guide for building useful diffusion models that include realistic human reasoning and decision-making.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Ghaffarzadegan et al. (2023) decomposes epidemic propagation simulation into a Mechanistic Model representing virus information/propagation and a Decision-Making Model representing agents' decision-making process.
“[Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2023] also discusses the epidemic propagation simulation and decomposes the simulation into two parts: the Mechanistic Model which represents the information or propagation of the virus and the Decision-Making Model which represents the agents' decision-making process when facing the virus.”
From Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Lotka, A.J., Contribution to the Theory of Periodic Reactions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1910. 14(3): p. 271-274.
- Kermack, W.O., A.G. McKendrick, and G.T. Walker, A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, 1927. 115(772): p. 700-721.
- Forrester, J.W., Industrial Dynamics. 1961: MIT Press.
- Forrester, J.W., Market growth as influenced by capital investment. Industrial Management Review, 1968. 9(2): p. 83-105.
- Richardson, G.P., Reflections on the foundations of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 2011. 27(3): p. 219-243.
- Richardson, G.P., Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. 1991, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Sterman, J., System dynamics at sixty: the path forward. System Dynamics Review, 2018. 34(1- 2): p. 5-47.
- Epstein, J.M., Generative Social Science. 2007, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Bankes, S.C., Agent-based modeling: A revolution? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002. 99(suppl_3): p. 7199-7200.
- Railsback, S.F. and V. Grimm, Agent-based and individual-based modeling: a practical introduction. 2019: Princeton university press.
- Rahmandad, H., R. Oliva, and N.D. Osgood, Analytical methods for dynamic modelers. 2015: MIT Press.
- Andersen, D.F., G.P. Richardson, and J.A.M. Vennix, Group model building: adding more science to the craft. System Dynamics Review, 1997. 13(2): p. 187-201.
- Darabi, N. and N. Hosseinichimeh, System Dynamics Modeling in Health and Medicine: A Systematic Literature Review. System Dynamics Review, 2020.
- Homer, J.B. and G.B. Hirsch, System Dynamics Modeling for Public Health: Background and Opportunities. American Journal of Public Health, 2006. 96(3): p. 452-458.
- Lim, T.Y., et al., Modeling the evolution of the US opioid crisis for national policy development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022. 119(23): p. e2115714119.
- Rahmandad, H., Behavioral responses to risk promote vaccinating high-contact individuals first. System Dynamics Review, 2022. 38(3): p. 246-263.
- Rahmandad, H. and J. Sterman, Quantifying the COVID-19 endgame: Is a new normal within reach? System Dynamics Review, 2022. 38(4): p. 329-353.
- Sterman, J., et al., Climate interactive: the C-ROADS climate policy model. System Dynamics Review, 2012. 28(3): p. 295-305.
- Repenning, N.P. and J.D. Sterman, Capability Traps and Self-Confirming Attribution Errors in the Dynamics of Process Improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2002. 47(2): p. 265-295.
- Akhavan, A. and P. Gonçalves, Managing the trade-off between groundwater resources and large-scale agriculture: the case of pistachio production in Iran. System Dynamics Review, 2021. 37(2-3): p. 155-196.
- Moxnes, E., Not only the tragedy of the commons: misperceptions of feedback and policies for sustainable development. System Dynamics Review, 2000. 16(4): p. 325-348.
- Simon, H.A., Models of Man: Social and Rational. 1957: Wiley.
- Friedman, M., The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, in Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, W.C. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger, and K. Richter, Editors. 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 173-178.
- Simon, H.A., Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. 1997: MIT Press.
- Cao, Y., et al., A Comprehensive Survey of AI-Generated Content (AIGC): A History of Generative AI from GAN to ChatGPT. arxiv preprint arXiv:2303.04226, 2023. · arXiv
- Mondal, S., S. Das, and V.G. Vrana, How to Bell the Cat? A Theoretical Review of Generative Artificial Intelligence towards Digital Disruption in All Walks of Life. Technologies, 2023. 11(2): p. 44.
- Wang, L., et al., A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents. arXiv:2308.11432, 2023. · arXiv
- Ziems, C., et al., Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03514, 2023. · arXiv
- Lane, D.C. and E.A.J.A. Rouwette, Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise. European Journal of Operational Research, 2023. 306(2): p. 777- 794.
- Ma, Z., Y. Mei, and Z. Su, Understanding the Benefits and Challenges of Using Large Language Model-based Conversational Agents for Mental Well-being Support. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15810, 2023. · arXiv
- Hamilton, S., Blind judgement: Agent-based supreme court modelling with gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05327, 2023. · arXiv
- Boiko, D.A., R. MacKnight, and G. Gomes, Emergent autonomous scientific research capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05332, 2023. · arXiv
- Akata, E., et al., Playing repeated games with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16867, 2023. · arXiv
- Park, J.S., et al. Social simulacra: Creating populated prototypes for social computing systems. in Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 2022.
- Park, J.S., et al., Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. arxiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442, 2023. · arXiv
- Gao, C., et al., S^3: Social-network Simulation System with Large Language Model-Empowered Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14984, 2023. · arXiv
- Williams, R., et al., Epidemic Modeling with Generative Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04986, 2023. · arXiv
- Goldberg, L.R., An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990. 59(6): p. 1216-1229.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges
Guo, T., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Chang, R., Pei, S., Chawla, N. V., Wiest, O., & Zhang, X. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01680 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ghaffarzadegan, N., Majumdar, A., Williams, R., & Hosseinichimeh, N.
- Affiliations
- Virginia Tech (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ghaffarzadegan, Navid
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 0883-7066 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2309.11456
- OpenAlex
- W4390742613
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 9.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- System Dynamics Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2229819)
- Division of Social and Economic Sciences (2229819)
- Division of Mathematical Sciences (2229819)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Simulation Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
- Keywords
- large language models, human decision-making, organizational behavior, individual-level simulation, prompt sensitivity, human-AI coupling
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
