Preregistration for Experiments with AI Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) and autonomous AI agents has given rise to a rapidly growing methodological paradigm: "in silico" behavioral experiments. Originally conceived as a way to use AI agents as proxies for human participants in studies of cognition, decision-making, and social dynamics, this approach has taken on new significance -- as AI agents increasingly negotiate, transact, and make consequential decisions on behalf of people and organizations, understanding their behavior has become a research priority in its own right. While these experiments with AI agents offer unprecedented advantages in terms of scalability, cost efficiency, and experimental control, they also inherit, and in some cases amplify, methodological vulnerabilities that have long plagued human subjects research. To address these issues, this paper argues that preregistration practices -- central to improving the credibility of human subjects experiments -- should now be extended to experiments with AI agents. We systematically catalog the researcher degrees of freedom that experiments with AI agents introduce -- model selection, prompt wording, settings, and outcome-contingent redesign, for example -- and show how the low cost of iteration and lack of reporting norms make these choices both easy to exploit and difficult to detect. We propose a preregistration template tailored to experiments with AI agents and call on conferences, journals, and funding agencies to make preregistration standard practice for this emerging research paradigm.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 21 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 May 2026.
Builds on
21 of 62 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 20
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
- 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning that Matterscited by 754
- 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 515
- 2022Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3cited by 398
- 2020Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)cited by 322
8 more
- 2023How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?cited by 270
- 2023Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMscited by 215
- 2024The Butterfly Effect of Altering Prompts: How Small Changes and Jailbreaks Affect Large Language Model Performancecited by 100
- 2019A Step Toward Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning Researchcited by 77
- 2023Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Modelscited by 74
- 2025Specializing Large Language Models to Simulate Survey Response Distributions for Global Populationscited by 53
- 2025An overview of model uncertainty and variability in LLM-based sentiment analysis. Challenges, mitigation strategies and the role of explainabilitycited by 15
- 2025The Instability of Safety: How Random Seeds and Temperature Expose Inconsistent LLM Refusal Behaviorcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026HumanStudy-Bench: Towards AI Agent Design for Participant Simulation
- 2025AI Agent Behavioral Science
- 2025Exploring Large Language Model Agents for Piloting Social Experiments
- 2026Questionnaire Responses Do not Capture the Safety of AI Agents
- 2024Reproducing and Extending Experiments in Behavioral Strategy with Large Language Models
- 2025Can Generative AI agents behave like humans? Evidence from laboratory market experiments
- 2026AI Coding Agents in Social Science: Methodologically Diverse, Empirically Consistent, Interpretively Vulnerable
- 2025Teaching AI to Handle Exceptions: Supervised Fine-Tuning with Human-Aligned Judgment