Logan Cross

Logan Cross, Violet Xiang, Agam Bhatia et al.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) methods struggle with the non-stationarity of multi-agent systems and fail to adaptively learn online when tested with novel agents. Here, we leverage large language models (LLMs) to create an autonomous agent that can handle these challenges. Our agent, Hypothetical Minds, consists of a cognitively-inspired architecture, featuring modular components for perception, memory, and hierarchical planning over two levels of abstraction. We introduce the Theory of Mind module that scaffolds the high-level planning process by generating hypotheses about other agents' strategies in natural language. It then evaluates and iteratively refines these hypotheses by reinforcing hypotheses that make correct predictions about the other agents' behavior. Hypothetical Minds significantly improves performance over previous LLM-agent and RL baselines on a range of competitive, mixed motive, and collaborative domains in the Melting Pot benchmark, including both dyadic and population-based environments. Additionally, comparisons against LLM-agent baselines and ablations reveal the importance of hypothesis evaluation and refinement for succeeding on complex scenarios.

Joel Z. Leibo, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Manfred Diaz et al.

We propose a society-first theory of normative appropriateness where individuals, modeled as pre-trained actors with cognitive architectures analogous to Large Language Models (LLMs), generate behavior via predictive pattern completion. Our theory posits that individuals act by completing distributed symbolic patterns based on context, answering questions such as "What does a person such as I do in a situation such as this?". This sense-making mechanism provides a parsimonious account of the key features of human norms: their context-dependence, arbitrariness, automaticity, dynamism, and their support from social sanctioning. It challenges rational-choice theories of social norms by accounting for their key features without needing to exogenously posit scalar rewards or preference relations. By distinguishing between explicit norms, which we associate with in-context adaptation, and implicit norms, which we associate with long-term memory, the theory reconceptualizes several foundational ideas in cognitive science. In particular, it gives an alternative account to the data traditionally seen as supporting dual-process models, and it flips the role of rationality, allowing us to construe it as adherence to culturally-contingent justification standards.

Davide Paglieri, Logan Cross, William A. Cunningham et al.

Evaluating AI systems that interact with humans requires understanding their behavior across diverse user populations, but collecting representative human data is often expensive or infeasible, particularly for novel technologies or hypothetical future scenarios. Recent work in Generative Agent-Based Modeling has shown that large language models can simulate human-like synthetic personas with high fidelity, accurately reproducing the beliefs and behaviors of specific individuals. However, most approaches require detailed data about target populations and often prioritize density matching (replicating what is most probable) rather than support coverage (spanning what is possible), leaving long-tail behaviors underexplored. We introduce Persona Generators, functions that can produce diverse synthetic populations tailored to arbitrary contexts. We apply an iterative improvement loop based on AlphaEvolve, using large language models as mutation operators to refine our Persona Generator code over hundreds of iterations. The optimization process produces lightweight Persona Generators that can automatically expand small descriptions into populations of diverse synthetic personas that maximize coverage of opinions and preferences along relevant diversity axes. We demonstrate that evolved generators substantially outperform existing baselines across six diversity metrics on held-out contexts, producing populations that span rare trait combinations difficult to achieve in standard LLM outputs.

Logan Cross, Jordi Grau-Moya, William A. Cunningham et al.

Status signaling drives human behavior and the allocation of scarce resources such as mating opportunities, yet the generative mechanisms governing how specific goods, signals, or behaviors acquire prestige remain a puzzle. Classical frameworks, such as Costly Signaling Theory, treat preferences as fixed and struggle to explain how semiotic meaning changes based on context or drifts dynamically over time, occasionally reaching tipping points. In this work, we propose a computational theory of status grounded in the theory of appropriateness, positing that status symbols emerge endogenously through a feedback loop of social observation and predictive pattern completion. We validate this theory using simulations of groups of Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents in the Concordia framework. By experimentally manipulating social visibility within naturalistic agent daily routines, we demonstrate that social interactions transform functional demand into status-seeking behavior. We observe the emergence of price run-ups and positive price elasticity (Veblen effects) for both real-world luxury items and procedurally generated synthetic goods, ruling out pretraining bias as the sole driver. Furthermore, we demonstrate that "influencer" agents can drive the endogenous formation of distinct subcultures through targeted sanctioning, and find that similar social influence effects generalize to non-monetary signaling behaviors. This work provides a generative bridge between micro-level cognition and macro-level economic and sociological phenomena, offering a new methodology for forecasting how cultural conventions emerge from interaction.

Rakshit S Trivedi, Natasha Jaques, Logan Cross et al.

AI's central challenge is shifting from capability to coexistence. The dominant paradigm in AI research focuses on developing powerful agents that treat the world as an exogenous and stationary source of feedback. We contend that superintelligence, an extremely capable task solver, born out of such a solipsistic approach to AI design, is unlikely to be cooperative. Deploying AI systems induces endogenous non-stationarity, resulting in a train-test-deploy gap where historical distributions diverge from the deployment context. We refer to this as the self-undermining property of unilateral optimization. Closing this gap requires AI that participates in cooperation: the equilibrium-selection process through which multiple actors navigate their interdependence. We call for a non-solipsistic research paradigm that treats this interdependence as a core design principle rather than approaching cooperation as a task to solve. This entails building dynamic evaluation testbeds involving adaptive counterparties, treating institutions as design primitives, and preserving human agency as a structural feature of the systems we build.

Fan-Yun Sun, S. I. Harini, Angela Yi et al.

Generating simulations to train intelligent agents in game-playing and robotics from natural language input, from user input or task documentation, remains an open-ended challenge. Existing approaches focus on parts of this challenge, such as generating reward functions or task hyperparameters. Unlike previous work, we introduce FACTORSIM that generates full simulations in code from language input that can be used to train agents. Exploiting the structural modularity specific to coded simulations, we propose to use a factored partially observable Markov decision process representation that allows us to reduce context dependence during each step of the generation. For evaluation, we introduce a generative simulation benchmark that assesses the generated simulation code's accuracy and effectiveness in facilitating zero-shot transfers in reinforcement learning settings. We show that FACTORSIM outperforms existing methods in generating simulations regarding prompt alignment (e.g., accuracy), zero-shot transfer abilities, and human evaluation. We also demonstrate its effectiveness in generating robotic tasks.

Logan Cross, Erik Brockbank, Tobias Gerstenberg et al.

How do we predict others from patterns in their behavior and what are the computational constraints that limit this ability? We investigate these questions by modeling human behavior over repeated games of rock, paper, scissors from Brockbank & Vul (2024). Against algorithmic opponents that varied in strategic sophistication, people readily exploit simple transition patterns (e.g., consistently playing rock after paper) but struggle to detect more complex sequential dependencies. To understand the cognitive mechanisms underlying these abilities and their limitations, we deploy Hypothetical Minds (HM), a large language model-based agent that generates and tests hypotheses about opponent strategies, as a cognitive model of this behavior (Cross et al., 2024). We show that when applied to the same experimental conditions, HM closely mirrors human performance patterns, succeeding and failing in similar ways. To better understand the source of HM's failures and whether people might face similar cognitive bottlenecks in this context, we performed a series of ablations and augmentations targeting different components of the system. When provided with natural language descriptions of the opponents' strategies, HM successfully exploited 6/7 bot opponents with win rates >80% suggesting that accurate hypothesis generation is the primary cognitive bottleneck in this task. Further, by systematically manipulating the model's hypotheses through pedagogically-inspired interventions, we find that the model substantially updates its causal understanding of opponent behavior, revealing how model-based analyses can produce testable hypotheses about human cognition.