mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Thinking Less to Simulate Better: Intuitive Prompting Improves LLM Agents Simulating Individual Social Media Reactions, Including Unfamiliar Content

arXiv 2609.30563 ↗First posted 24 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.HCcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate

Abstract (arXiv)

Platform policies are increasingly tested on artificial users, making agent fidelity important. Yet convincing fake profiles could also manipulate perceived public opinion before elections. Validation has concentrated on agreement with human behaviour and has paid little attention to whether an agent behaves in line with the profile it was given. The present study profiled eight Serbian participants through a questionnaire, a deep interview, and a written self-presentation, recorded their reactions to sixty-eight social media posts, and asked four language models to predict those reactions under five prompt conditions varying profile content and instruction style. Attitudinal content improved prediction over demographic backstories by a wide margin. Agents matched their stated profiles more closely than participants matched their own survey answers, and consistency proved unrelated to fidelity once profile information was present. Instructing models to respond intuitively and immediately rather than analytically gave the highest fidelity of any condition and cut the compression of individual differences from seven times the human level to three. The advantage held on posts about topics the questionnaire never raised, where that condition reached the highest fidelity of any setup and beat a crowd baseline by a wide margin, which suggests that agents prompted this way could serve as general-purpose simulated users rather than specialists on the topics they were profiled for. Results may bear implications for the development of language models, because intuition-based setups appear better suited to some tasks than reasoning-based ones.

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 23 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

Builds on

23 of 71 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Don't Trust Generative Agents to Mimic Communication on Social Networks Unless You Benchmarked their Empirical Realism27 Jun
  2. 2023Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents16 Nov
  3. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior7 Apr

Other references · 20

  1. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
  2. 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 752
  3. 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 515
  4. 2023Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Modelscited by 437
  5. 2022Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3cited by 398
  6. 2023Playing repeated games with Large Language Modelscited by 217
  7. 2024Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulationscited by 169
  8. 2024OASIS: Open Agent Social Interaction Simulations with One Million Agentscited by 132
  9. 2023CoMPosT: Characterizing and Evaluating Caricature in LLM Simulationscited by 97
  10. 2023Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Modelscited by 74
  11. 2023Simulating Social Media Using Large Language Models to Evaluate Alternative News Feed Algorithmscited by 65
  12. 2017Cross-validation failure: small sample sizes lead to large error barscited by 43
8 more
  1. 2023Large Language Models Can Infer Psychological Dispositions of Social Media Userscited by 29
  2. 2024Six Fallacies in Substituting Large Language Models for Human Participantscited by 24
  3. 2025The simulation of judgment in LLMscited by 22
  4. 2023Personality testing of Large Language Models: Limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosocialitycited by 16
  5. 2023Does GPT-4 surpass human performance in linguistic pragmatics?cited by 16
  6. 2025A validity-guided workflow for robust large language model research in psychologycited by 8
  7. 2023Can ChatGPT Read Who You Are?cited by 5
  8. 2026Towards Simulating Social Media Users with LLMs: Evaluating the Operational Validity of Conditioned Comment Predictioncited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026LLM Agents Predict Social Media Reactions but Do Not Outperform Text Classifiers: Benchmarking Simulation Accuracy Using 120K+ Personas of 1511 Humans
  2. 2026Knowing You Is Everything: LLM Agents Achieve Near-Perfect Profile-Consistent Reaction Prediction in Social Media Simulation
  3. 2026Illusory Truth or Mere Exposure? Model-Dependent Repetition Effects in LLM-Based Social Media Simulations
  4. 2025Are LLM Agents Behaviorally Coherent? Latent Profiles for Social Simulation
  5. 2025Emergent Persuasion: Will LLMs Persuade Without Being Prompted?
  6. 2024Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates
  7. 2025Evaluating the Simulation of Human Personality-Driven Susceptibility to Misinformation with LLMs
  8. 2026Successive Training Stages and Large Language Model Persuasion: Effects of Misalignment, Supervised Fine-Tuning, and Preference Optimization