# Benchmarking Psychological Dynamics in Generative Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04246 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04246/

## 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 43 of its 89 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 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, 30 of 43)

- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15556/) (2022)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06899/) (2022)
- [Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10264/) (2022)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)
- [Understanding the Effects of RLHF on LLM Generalisation and Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06452/) (2023)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [Role-Play with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16367/) (2023)
- [Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04984/) (2024)
- [How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09009/) (2023)
- [PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.02547/) (2023)
- [AgentSociety: Large-Scale Simulation of LLM-Driven Generative Agents Advances Understanding of Human Behaviors and Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08691/) (2025)
- [Personality Traits in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.00184/) (2023)
- [AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07358/) (2024)
- [Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01908/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluated](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23836/) (2025)
- [LLM Social Simulations Are a Promising Research Method](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02234/) (2025)
- [Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.07951/) (2023)
- [One fish, two fish, but not the whole sea: Alignment reduces language models' conceptual diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04427/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Assume People are More Rational than We Really are](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17055/) (2024)
- [SimBench: Benchmarking the Ability of Large Language Models to Simulate Human Behaviors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17516/) (2025)
- [Large Language Model Psychometrics: A Systematic Review of Evaluation, Validation, and Enhancement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08245/) (2025)
- [metabench -- A Sparse Benchmark of Reasoning and Knowledge in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12844/) (2024)
- [Finetuning LLMs for Human Behavior Prediction in Social Science Experiments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.05830/) (2025)
- [Consistently Simulating Human Personas with Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.00222/) (2025)
- [This human study did not involve human subjects: Validating LLM simulations as behavioral evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15785/) (2026)
- [Adaptive Testing for LLM Evaluation: A Psychometric Alternative to Static Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.04689/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to simulate human behavior, acting as computational replicas of human subjects. Yet the lived psychological experience of humans is difficult to benchmark, particularly as it unfolds over time. We introduce a psychometric benchmark for computational replicas: personas that carry a fixed identity through an evolving sequence of events. Built entirely from published norms and meta-analytic effects, the benchmark scores two dimensions of psychological realism. The first, internal validity, quantifies whether generated trajectories reproduce the internal structure of repeated human measurement: distributions, the between- versus within-person variance partition, temporal dependence, and range. The second, external validity, quantifies whether replicas recover established trait, state, and indicator relations. Across 36 open-weight and proprietary LLMs from nine developers (1B-671B parameters), most recover the direction of established relations (84.3% mean agreement) and the variance partition (26 of 34), yet the within-person correlation and distributional structure elude recovery. Internal validity is independent of scale and capability: a mid-size open LLM (Gemma-3-27B) strikes the best trade-off between the two dimensions. The benchmark is a precondition for using computational replicas in causal inference across domains (e.g., marketing, healthcare), and identifies within-person grounding as the central challenge ahead.