# Human-Simulation Interaction: From Prediction to Exploration in LLM Agent Simulations for Policy

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07496 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.07496/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (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 4 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Generative agent-based modeling with actions grounded in physical, social, or digital space using Concordia](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.03664/) (2023)
- [Balancing Diversity and Risk in LLM Sampling: How to Select Your Method and Parameter for Open-Ended Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.13586/) (2024)
- [Ontologies in Design: How Imagining a Tree Reveals Possibilites and Assumptions in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03029/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agent-based models have historically served as tools for generative explanation, constructing testbeds in which candidate micro-level behavioral rules can be tested for their capacity to produce observed macro-level phenomena. The integration of Large Language Models into agent-based simulation has expanded what these models can represent, but it has also introduced an unexamined shift in how users engage them. We argue that current generative agent-based models (GABMs) inherit the dominant interaction metaphor of conversational LLM interfaces - a question-answer pattern that positions users as consumers of system output rather than explorers of a possibility space. In the context of policy, where problems are wicked and ground truth is unknowable in advance, this metaphor produces a trust deficit that cannot be resolved through improved model accuracy alone. We open a design space we call human-simulation interaction, and argue that warranted trust requires interaction metaphors that restore the exploratory capacity simulation has historically supported.