Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Nudging lets multi-agent LLM simulations enforce complex user mechanics while still producing notable emergent dynamics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-05-22 20:06 UTC

load-bearing objection AgentDynEx adds a Configuration Matrix and nudging to steer multi-agent LLM simulations, but the evaluation is described too vaguely to judge whether the claimed gains are real. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2504.09662 v3 submitted 2025-04-13 cs.MA cs.AIcs.HC

AgentDynEx: Nudging the Mechanics and Dynamics of Multi-Agent Simulations

Jenny Ma , Riya Sahni , Karthik Sreedhar , Lydia B. Chilton This is my paper
classification cs.MA cs.AIcs.HC
keywords multi-agent simulationslarge language modelsnudgingemergent dynamicssimulation mechanicsconfiguration matrixAI agent systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces AgentDynEx, a system that helps users configure multi-agent large language model simulations by specifying desired mechanics and dynamics. It guides the setup through a Configuration Matrix that identifies core rules and tracks milestones, then applies nudging to monitor ongoing interactions and make gentle corrections when the simulation drifts. The central finding is that this nudging approach supports richer mechanics than standard setups without sacrificing the unexpected social behaviors that make the simulations valuable. A sympathetic reader would care because reliable control over structure without killing emergence could turn these simulations into more useful tools for modeling real human interactions.

Core claim

AgentDynEx uses LLMs to walk users through a Configuration Matrix that pins down core mechanics and defines milestones for tracking dynamics. It then applies nudging, in which the system reflects on simulation progress and intervenes gently if outcomes begin to deviate from the intended path. A technical evaluation showed that simulations with nudging support more complex mechanics and retain notable dynamics compared with simulations run without nudging.

What carries the argument

Nudging: a dynamic reflection-and-intervention process in which the system monitors simulation progress and applies gentle corrections to stay aligned with user-specified outcomes.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen simulation scenarios and metrics fairly represent the general problem of balancing mechanics against dynamics, without post-hoc selection that favors nudging.

What would settle it

A replication study that applies AgentDynEx to a fresh set of simulation scenarios and metrics and finds that nudging no longer permits more complex mechanics or that dynamics become less notable.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Users can define and maintain richer sets of mechanics in multi-agent simulations.
  • Emergent dynamics remain observable and valuable rather than being suppressed by rigid rules.
  • Nudging provides a practical method for keeping simulations aligned with user goals across different domains.
  • The Configuration Matrix plus nudging combination offers a repeatable workflow for setting up balanced simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Nudging could be tested as a lightweight control layer in other LLM-driven agent systems where drift is common.
  • The same monitoring-plus-intervention pattern might help stabilize single-agent or non-LLM simulations that suffer from similar mechanics-dynamics trade-offs.
  • If nudging scales, it could support longer-running simulations used for policy exploration or social modeling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AgentDynEx, an LLM-based system for configuring multi-agent simulations. Users specify mechanics and dynamics; the system guides them via a Configuration Matrix to identify core mechanics and define milestones for tracking dynamics. The key contribution is a 'nudging' technique in which the system reflects on simulation progress and gently intervenes to prevent deviation from intended outcomes. A technical evaluation is reported to demonstrate that nudging permits more complex mechanics while preserving notable emergent dynamics relative to non-nudged baselines.

Significance. If the evaluation proves rigorous, the work could meaningfully advance reliable multi-agent LLM simulations by providing a concrete mechanism to enforce user-specified mechanics without extinguishing valuable dynamics. This directly targets a recurring practical challenge in the field and, if substantiated, would offer a reusable technique rather than ad-hoc prompting strategies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Technical Evaluation] The central claim rests on an unspecified technical evaluation. No information is given on the simulation scenarios chosen, the operationalization or quantitative metrics for 'complex mechanics' and 'notable dynamics', the number of runs or statistical controls, the precise baseline (no-nudging) condition, or whether all attempted configurations were reported. Without these details it is impossible to determine whether the reported advantage is robust or the result of post-hoc selection of favorable cases or metrics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The Configuration Matrix and nudging procedure would benefit from a formal definition, pseudocode, or flowchart to make the system reproducible.
  2. [Nudging Method] Clarify whether nudging is applied uniformly across all agents or selectively, and how intervention strength is controlled to avoid over-correction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for identifying the need for greater transparency in our technical evaluation. We agree that the current description is insufficient and will substantially revise the manuscript to provide the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Technical Evaluation] The central claim rests on an unspecified technical evaluation. No information is given on the simulation scenarios chosen, the operationalization or quantitative metrics for 'complex mechanics' and 'notable dynamics', the number of runs or statistical controls, the precise baseline (no-nudging) condition, or whether all attempted configurations were reported. Without these details it is impossible to determine whether the reported advantage is robust or the result of post-hoc selection of favorable cases or metrics.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not currently supply these details. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection that specifies: the simulation scenarios and their selection rationale; the exact operational definitions and quantitative metrics used for 'complex mechanics' and 'notable dynamics'; the total number of runs, random seeds, and any statistical tests or controls; a precise description of the no-nudging baseline (including prompt templates and configuration matrix usage); and a statement confirming that all attempted configurations were executed and reported, with any exclusion criteria made explicit. These additions will allow readers to evaluate the robustness of the results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; system description and evaluation are self-contained

full rationale

The paper introduces AgentDynEx as a system that uses LLMs to configure simulations via a Configuration Matrix and applies nudging for dynamic intervention. The central claim rests on a high-level technical evaluation showing benefits of nudging for mechanics and dynamics. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or mathematical predictions are present. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The evaluation is presented as an empirical comparison rather than reducing to any input by construction. This is a standard descriptive systems paper with no derivation chain that collapses into its own definitions or prior self-references.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract describes a new system and evaluation but does not introduce or rely on any explicit free parameters, unproven axioms, or invented entities beyond standard LLM simulation concepts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5693 in / 1056 out tokens · 53033 ms · 2026-05-22T20:06:37.166255+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Multi-agent large language model simulations have the potential to model complex human behaviors and interactions. If the mechanics are set up properly, unanticipated and valuable social dynamics can surface. However, it is challenging to consistently enforce simulation mechanics while still allowing for notable and emergent dynamics. We present AgentDynEx, an AI system that helps set up simulations from user-specified mechanics and dynamics. AgentDynEx uses LLMs to guide users through a Configuration Matrix to identify core mechanics and define milestones to track dynamics. It also introduces a method called \textit{nudging}, where the system dynamically reflects on simulation progress and gently intervenes if it begins to deviate from intended outcomes. A technical evaluation found that nudging enables simulations to have more complex mechanics and maintain its notable dynamics compared to simulations without nudging. We discuss the importance of nudging as a technique for balancing mechanics and dynamics of multi-agent simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.09662 by Jenny Ma, Karthik Sreedhar, Lydia B. Chilton, Riya Sahni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: AgentDynEx is an LLM-based system for setting up and tracking multi-agent simulations. The user first specifies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: GPTeam UI shows the logs of each agent behaviors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: GPTeam Sample JSON Configuration of a Classroom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Configuration Matrix: There are 3 columns for defining core mechanics (Agents, Actions, and Locations), and 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Configuration Matrix UI: A - Users type in a scenario they want to simulate. B - Users brainstorm idea suggestions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Nudging: The system generates intermediate summaries during simulation runtime. It also dynamically reflects on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Intermediate Summaries Interface: AgentDynEx presents the configuration file, logs, and a summary of events as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Automatic and Manual Nudging Interface: AgentDynEx dynamically reflects on the simulation’s progress to generate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Holistic Reflection Interface: AgentDynEx supports dynamic repair by identifying simulation breakdowns and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results summarized for H2. Man significantly outperforms Base, but not Auto. Man+R significantly outper￾forms Auto+R and Base+R. scores (p=0.49). We took a close look at what is happening in the simulations for Man and Auto. We noticed that when initial setup is poor, both manual and automatic nudging spend significant effort in correcting the same issues caused by the flawed starting state rather than ad… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results summarized for H1. Auto and Auto+R sig￾nificantly outperform both the Base and Base+R conditions. 5.2.1 H1 - Automatic Nudging Improves Mechanics. To test if auto￾matic nudging improves mechanics, we compared simulations with automatic nudging against the baseline conditions (Auto against Base and Auto+R against Base+R). A Tukey’s HSD test showed that Auto (average score 2.43) significantly outper… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Results summarized for H3. Man+R significantly outperforms Man. However, Auto+R does not significantly outperform Auto. system detected fewer urgent issues, issued fewer nudges, and let the simulation proceed at its default pace, even if that pace was too slow or inefficient to capitalize on the strong setup. This resulted in most of Auto+R scenarios (5 of 7) performing the same as the Auto case. Thus, th… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. ZORO: Active Rules for Reliable Vibe Coding

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ZORO integrates rules directly into AI coding workflows by enriching plans, enforcing compliance with proof requirements, and evolving rules via user feedback, resulting in better rule adherence and shifts in user behavior.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    101dotxyz. 2024. GPTeam: An open-source multi-agent simulation. https://github. com/101dotxyz/GPTeam. Accessed: 2024-10-10

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Preprint, arXiv:2208.10264

    Gati Aher, Rosa I. Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2023. Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies. arXiv:2208.10264 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.10264

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Tyler Angert, Miroslav Ivan Suzara, Jenny Han, Christopher Lawrence Pondoc, and Hariharan Subramonyam. 2023. Spellburst: A Node-based Interface for Exploratory Creative Coding with Natural Language Prompts. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’23). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi....

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183 2023

  4. [4]

    1984.The Evolution of Cooperation

    Robert Axelrod. 1984.The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Harrison Chase. 2022. LangChain: Building Applications with LLMs through Composability. https://www.langchain.com/ Accessed: 2024-04-09

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Ziyan Cui, Ning Li, and Huaikang Zhou. 2024. Can AI Replace Human Sub- jects? A Large-Scale Replication of Psychological Experiments with LLMs. arXiv:2409.00128 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00128

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez. 2011. The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations.Journal of Economic Perspectives25, 4 (2011), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.165

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.25.4.165 2011

  8. [8]

    Kenneth A. Dodge. 2004. The nature-nurture debate and public policy.Merrill- Palmer Quarterly50, 4 (2004), 445–470

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    Will Epperson, Gagan Bansal, Victor Dibia, Adam Fourney, Jack Gerrits, Erkang Zhu, and Saleema Amershi. 2025. Interactive Debugging and Steering of Multi- Agent AI Systems. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Ma et al. (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, U...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713581 2025

  10. [10]

    Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. 2000. Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments.American Economic Review90, 4 (2000), 980–994

    work page 2000

  11. [11]

    Navid Ghaffarzadegan, Aritra Majumdar, Ross Williams, and Niyousha Hos- seinichimeh. 2024. Generative agent-based modeling: an introduction and tutorial. System Dynamics Review40, 1 (2024), e1761. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1761

    work page doi:10.1002/sdr.1761 2024

  12. [12]

    1984.The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration

    Anthony Giddens. 1984.The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press

    work page 1984

  13. [13]

    Fulin Guo. 2023. GPT in Game Theory Experiments. arXiv:2305.05516 [econ.GN]

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    William Hagman, David Andersson, Daniel Västfjäll, and Gustav Tinghög. 2015. Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges.Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6, 3 (2015), 439–453

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Thomas Hale, Noam Angrist, Rafael Goldszmidt, Beatriz Kira, Anna Petherick, Toby Phillips, and Samuel Webster. 2021. A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker).Nature Human Behaviour5, 4 (2021), 529–538

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Hart, Callie Little, and Elsje van Bergen

    Sara A. Hart, Callie Little, and Elsje van Bergen. 2021. Nurture might be nature: cautionary tales and proposed solutions.npj Science of Learning6, 1 (2021), 2

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Luke Hewitt, Ashwini Ashokkumar, Isaias Ghezae, and Robb Willer. 2024. Pre- dicting Results of Social Science Experiments Using Large Language Models. (2024). Working Paper

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    John J. Horton. 2023. Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus? arXiv:2301.07543 [econ.GN] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2301.07543

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. InProceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI. AAAI Press, 1–5

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Mairie Levitt. 2013. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour.Life Sciences, Society and Policy9, 1 (2013), 13

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Yuan Li, Yixuan Zhang, and Lichao Sun. 2023. MetaAgents: Simulating Inter- actions of Human Behaviors for LLM-based Task-oriented Coordination via Collaborative Generative Agents. arXiv:2310.06500 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2310.06500

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Jenny Ma, Karthik Sreedhar, Vivian Liu, Sitong Wang, Pedro Alejandro Perez, Riya Sahni, and Lydia B. Chilton. 2024. DynEx: Dynamic Code Synthesis with Structured Design Exploration for Accelerated Exploratory Programming.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00400(2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00400

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    James G. March. 1994.A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. Free Press

    work page 1994

  24. [24]

    Sangiovanni-Vincentelli

    Giovanni De Micheli, Luca Benini, and Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli

    work page

  25. [25]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ 43.555988

    A Solution Methodology for Exact Design Space Exploration in a Three- Dimensional Design Space.IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems16, 12 (1997), 1457–1472. https://doi.org/10.1109/ 43.555988

    work page 1997

  26. [26]

    Rick O’Gorman, Joseph Henrich, and Mark Van Vugt. 2009. Constraining Free Riding in Public Goods Games: Designated Solitary Punishers Can Sustain Human Cooperation.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences276, 1655 (2009), 323–329

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    2005.Understanding Institutional Diversity

    Elinor Ostrom. 2005.Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2023. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. arXiv:2304.03442 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S

    Joon Sung Park, Lindsay Popowski, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2022. Social Simulacra: Creating Populated Prototypes for Social Computing Systems. arXiv:2208.04024 [cs.HC] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2208.04024

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Zou, Aaron Shaw, Benjamin Mako Hill, Carrie Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Robb Willer, Percy Liang, and Michael S

    Joon Sung Park, Carolyn Q. Zou, Aaron Shaw, Benjamin Mako Hill, Carrie Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Robb Willer, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein

    work page

  31. [31]

    LLM Agents Grounded in Self-Reports Enable General-Purpose Simulation of Individuals

    Generative Agent Simulations of 1,000 People. arXiv:2411.10109 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10109

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Jinghua Piao, Yuwei Yan, Jun Zhang, Nian Li, Junbo Yan, Xiaochong Lan, Zhihong Lu, Zhiheng Zheng, Jing Yi Wang, Di Zhou, Chen Gao, Fengli Xu, Fang Zhang, Ke Rong, Jun Su, and Yong Li. 2024. AgentSociety: Large-Scale Simulation of LLM- Driven Generative Agents Advances Understanding of Human Behaviors and Society.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08691(2024). http...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Bruce Sacerdote. 2011. Nature and nurture effects on children’s outcomes: What have we learned from studies of twins and adoptees? InHandbook of Social Economics. Vol. 1. Elsevier, 1–30

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    Florian Schlosser, Benjamin F Maier, Olivia Jack, David Hinrichs, Anna Zachariae, Dirk Brockmann, and Andreas Rose. 2020. COVID-19 lockdown induces disease- mitigating structural changes in mobility networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 52 (2020), 32883–32890

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Shweta Singh, Deblina Roy, Krittika Sinha, Sheeba Parveen, Ginni Sharma, and Gunjan Joshi. 2020. Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown on mental health of children and adolescents: A narrative review with recommendations.Psychiatry Research293 (2020), 113429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113429

    work page doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113429 2020

  36. [36]

    Nickerson, and Lydia B

    Karthik Sreedhar, Alice Cai, Jenny Ma, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, and Lydia B. Chilton

    work page

  37. [37]

    InPro- ceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’25)

    Simulating Cooperative Prosocial Behavior with Multi-Agent LLMs: Evidence and Mechanisms for AI Agents to Inform Policy Decisions. InPro- ceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1272–1286. https://doi.org/10.1145/3708359.3712149

    work page doi:10.1145/3708359.3712149

  38. [38]

    Karthik Sreedhar and Lydia Chilton. 2024. Simulating Human Strategic Behavior: Comparing Single and Multi-agent LLMs. arXiv:2402.08189 [cs.HC] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.08189

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Sangho Suh, Meng Chen, Bryan Min, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Haijun Xia. 2024. Luminate: Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creation. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–26

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Sunstein

    Cass R. Sunstein. 2014. Nudging: A Very Short Guide.Journal of Consumer Policy 37 (2014), 583–588

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Thaler and Cass R

    Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008.Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press

    work page 2008

  42. [42]

    Walker and Donald E

    Robert A. Walker and Donald E. Thomas. 1997. A Solution Methodology for Exact Design Space Exploration in a Three-Dimensional Design Space. InProceedings of the 34th Annual Design Automation Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/266021.266024

    work page doi:10.1145/266021.266024 1997

  43. [43]

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903 (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Tongshuang Wu, Ellen Jiang, Aaron Donsbach, Jeff Gray, Alejandra Molina, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2022. PromptChainer: Chaining Large Language Model Prompts through Visual Programming. arXiv:2203.06566 [cs.HC] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2203.06566

    work page arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christo- pher D Manning

    Chengxing Xie, Canyu Chen, and Feiran Jia. 2024. Can Large Language Model Agents Simulate Human Trust Behaviors? arXiv:2402.04559 AgentDynEx: Nudging the Mechanics and Dynamics of Multi-Agent Simulations Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY A GPTeam Background The GPTeam system architecture is defined by a class structure with two key l...

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    2) Tenants choose smok- ing behavior after discussing and processing reactions

    Landlord announces policy - jumpstarts tenant discussions about new policy. 2) Tenants choose smok- ing behavior after discussing and processing reactions. 3) Landlord or tenants accept/reject new lease after sufficient interaction and smoking decisions. Stop Condi- tion Landlord or ten- ants cancel or ex- tend the lease Either landlord tells all tenants ...

    work page

  47. [47]

    world_name

    Real estate agent declares home price. 2) Homebuyers declare inter- est by showing money they’ll pay. 3) After initial interaction, homebuy- ers may provide emotional pleas or other methods. 4) Real estate agent decides who buys home. Stop Condi- tion Landlord decides who gets home and home-buyer agrees Real estate agent tells home-buyer they get house an...

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Assignment 1 is due now. Please submit your assignments

    Have Professor say "Assignment 1 is due now. Please submit your assignments" " "Problem: Moderator is not ending the round. Solution: 1. Have the moderator say "Round is over." " Make sure what the agents are saying are not influencing the outcome of the simulation and instead just push things along in the simulation. They must be objective things being s...

    work page 2018