Chance Jiajie Li

Chance Jiajie Li, Zhenze Mo, Yuhan Tang et al.

Simulating human reasoning in open-ended tasks has long been a central aspiration in AI and cognitive science. While large language models now approximate human responses at scale, they remain tuned to population-level consensus, often erasing the individuality of reasoning styles and belief trajectories. To advance the vision of more human-like reasoning in machines, we introduce HugAgent (Human-Grounded Agent Benchmark), which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions: (i) from averaged to individualized reasoning, (ii) from behavioral mimicry to cognitive alignment, and (iii) from vignette-based to open-ended data. The benchmark evaluates whether a model can predict a specific person's behavioral responses and the underlying reasoning dynamics in out-of-distribution scenarios, given partial evidence of their prior views. HugAgent adopts a dual-track design: a human track that automates and scales the think-aloud method to collect ecologically valid human reasoning data, and a synthetic track for further scalability and systematic stress testing. This architecture enables low-cost, extensible expansion to new tasks and populations. Experiments with state-of-the-art language models reveal persistent adaptation gaps, positioning HugAgent as the first extensible benchmark for aligning machine reasoning with the individuality of human thought. The benchmark, along with its complete data collection pipeline and companion chatbot, is open-sourced as HugAgent (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/HugAgent) and TraceYourThinking (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/trace-your-thinking).

Chance Jiajie Li, Jiayi Wu, Zhenze Mo et al.

Simulating society with large language models (LLMs), we argue, requires more than generating plausible behavior; it demands cognitively grounded reasoning that is structured, revisable, and traceable. LLM-based agents are increasingly used to emulate individual and group behavior, primarily through prompting and supervised fine-tuning. Yet current simulations remain grounded in a behaviorist "demographics in, behavior out" paradigm, focusing on surface-level plausibility. As a result, they often lack internal coherence, causal reasoning, and belief traceability, making them unreliable for modeling how people reason, deliberate, and respond to interventions. To address this, we present a conceptual modeling paradigm, Generative Minds (GenMinds), which draws from cognitive science to support structured belief representations in generative agents. To evaluate such agents, we introduce the RECAP (REconstructing CAusal Paths) framework, a benchmark designed to assess reasoning fidelity via causal traceability, demographic grounding, and intervention consistency. These contributions advance a broader shift: from surface-level mimicry to generative agents that simulate thought, not just language, for social simulations.