LLMs struggle to simulate human belief updates in controlled environments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28347v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 15:19:18 GMT
• Title: LLMs struggle to simulate human belief updates in controlled environments
• Abstract summary: We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates.<n>Some LLMs can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' initial stances.<n>Three systematic biases emerge across all models.
• Score: 13.511441750037376
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed as proxies for human study participants in social science experiments, yet the fidelity of this practice has rarely been tested directly. We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates, comparing LLM outputs 1-to-1 against ground truth data from 391 UK participants on Prolific, who updated their stances on three discussion topics after reading Reddit comments. Each participant was simulated by an LLM conditioned on a persona derived from their demographic and personality trait data. We find that some LLMs (Qwen3-32B and GPT-5-Mini) can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' actual initial stances. All six models fail to simulate initial stances themselves and to produce faithful belief updates from self-generated stances. Three systematic biases emerge across all models: overrepresentation of neutral positions, more frequent but smaller belief shifts than humans, and a failure to rank comments by convincingness. Demographic and personality trait personas had no consistent effect on fidelity. LLM simulations of human belief dynamics are only reliable when grounded in realistic starting conditions, that current multi-round social media simulations rarely provide.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Change Their Minds Like Humans? Diagnosing Human--LLM Divergence in Single-Turn Persuasion Judgments [10.717755637740948]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations.<n>We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus.<n>Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T14:08:06Z)
• Reinforcing Human Behavior Simulation via Verbal Feedback [105.68319269895653]
  We present DITTO, a model trained by treating verbal feedback as a first-class signal in reinforcement learning.<n>We also introduce SOUL, a unified benchmark and training data suite spanning 10 tasks across six categories: Theory of Mind, character role play, social skill, learner simulation, user simulation, and persona simulation.<n>DitTO achieves an average 36% improvement over the base model and exceeds GPT-5.4 on 6 of 10 SOUL benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T21:23:24Z)
• Can LLMs Emulate Human Belief Dynamics? [4.918358353535447]
  LLMs fail to capture initial human belief distributions and tend to be overall more conformist than humans.<n>They also take a nuanced approach to emulating human homophilic tendencies within networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T23:21:11Z)
• Evaluating Alignment of Behavioral Dispositions in LLMs [15.282965130762648]
  We focus on behavioral dispositions that shape responses in social contexts.<n>We introduce a framework to study how closely the dispositions expressed by LLMs align with those of humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T19:59:12Z)
• Consistently Simulating Human Personas with Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning [52.07170679746533]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human users in interactive settings such as therapy, education, and social role-play.<n>We introduce a unified framework for evaluating and improving persona consistency in LLM-generated dialogue.<n>We define three automatic metrics: prompt-to-line consistency, line-to-line consistency, and Q&A consistency, that capture different types of persona drift and validate each against human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-31T19:40:41Z)
• TwinVoice: A Multi-dimensional Benchmark Towards Digital Twins via LLM Persona Simulation [55.55404595177229]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are exhibiting emergent human-like abilities.<n>TwinVoice is a benchmark for assessing persona simulation across diverse real-world contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T14:00:42Z)
• Social Simulations with Large Language Model Risk Utopian Illusion [61.358959720048354]
  We introduce a systematic framework for analyzing large language models' behavior in social simulation.<n>Our approach simulates multi-agent interactions through chatroom-style conversations and analyzes them across five linguistic dimensions.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs do not faithfully reproduce genuine human behavior but instead reflect overly idealized versions of it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T06:08:41Z)
• Large Language Models Show Human-like Social Desirability Biases in Survey Responses [12.767606361552684]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) skew their scores towards the desirable ends of trait dimensions when personality evaluation is inferred. This bias exists in all tested models, including GPT-4/3.5, Claude 3, Llama 3, and PaLM-2. reverse-coding all the questions decreases bias levels but does not eliminate them, suggesting that this effect cannot be attributed to acquiescence bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T19:02:53Z)
• Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? The Misleading Success of Simulating Social Interactions With LLMs [24.613282867543244]
  Large language models (LLM) have enabled richer social simulations, allowing for the study of various social phenomena. Recent work has used a more omniscient perspective on these simulations, which is fundamentally at odds with the non-omniscient, information asymmetric interactions that involve humans and AI agents in the real world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T03:49:17Z)
• Are You Sure? Challenging LLMs Leads to Performance Drops in The FlipFlop Experiment [82.60594940370919]
  We propose the FlipFlop experiment to study the multi-turn behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) We show that models flip their answers on average 46% of the time and that all models see a deterioration of accuracy between their first and final prediction, with an average drop of 17% (the FlipFlop effect) We conduct finetuning experiments on an open-source LLM and find that finetuning on synthetically created data can mitigate - reducing performance deterioration by 60% - but not resolve sycophantic behavior entirely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T23:40:22Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• CoMPosT: Characterizing and Evaluating Caricature in LLM Simulations [61.9212914612875]
  We present a framework to characterize LLM simulations using four dimensions: Context, Model, Persona, and Topic. We use this framework to measure open-ended LLM simulations' susceptibility to caricature, defined via two criteria: individuation and exaggeration. We find that for GPT-4, simulations of certain demographics (political and marginalized groups) and topics (general, uncontroversial) are highly susceptible to caricature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:00:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.