arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2608.18265

Modeling the Structure of Human Behavior with AI Prompt Vectors

Abstract

We introduce a general, easy-to-implement AI-based method for modeling and analyzing the structure and complexity of human behavior. We assign a large language model a "type vector" and then prompt it to choose actions across settings in which we observe human choices. For instance, the type vector (2, 4) becomes "You are a player characterized by the following profile: Altruism: 2 out of 5, Risk Aversion: 4 out of 5," after which it is prompted to make choices. We vary the dimensions (e.g., Altruism, Fairness, Trust,...) and values (e.g., 1-5) to minimize distance to human choices. Applying the method to 119,147 decisions made by 78,657 subjects from more than 35 countries across 10 classic economic game roles, we find that human behavior can be closely matched using three dimensions: Risk Aversion, Strategic Sophistication, and Trust. Moreover, the types needed to fit individuals across games cluster into fewer than a dozen groups, and can predict behavior in held-out games with different rules and available actions. The results suggest that behavior across diverse settings can be approximated by a low-dimensional, portable representation, supporting the possibility of general yet parsimonious theories across the behavioral sciences. More broadly, this new modeling method can provide insights into the structure of many human behaviors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Matthew O. Jackson, Benjamin S. Manning, Yutong Xie, Walter Yuan, Qiaozhu Mei. 2026-08-29. Modeling the Structure of Human Behavior with AI Prompt Vectors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18265

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Course design in the age of AI

I develop a model of learning-by-doing and course design, and use it to study the impacts of artificial intelligence (AI). A myopic student faces a sequence of tasks that he can work on or delegate to AI. Work requires costly effort but builds skill; delegation requires no effort but builds no skill. A teacher designs the task sequence ("course") to maximize the student's skill development, given his choices to work or delegate. Without AI, the teacher makes earlier tasks more effort-intensive and later tasks more skill-intensive. With AI, the teacher must redesign early tasks to induce effort, leading to less skill development. If AI complements effort, then improvements in AI quality make high-skill students learn faster but low-skill students learn slower.

econ.TH

Mechanism Design for Alignment and Control

We develop a framework for mechanism design with AI agents whose alignment (preferences) and capabilities (feasible actions and information) are unknown. We want such agents to act on our behalf so mechanisms must incentivize both honesty and obedience. A one-sided imitation structure---capabilities can be concealed but not counterfeited---yields a revelation principle, a characterization of implementable policies via nested cyclical monotonicity, and conditions under which eliciting higher-order beliefs can discipline multiple agents. We apply our framework to stylized examples of (i) sandbagging in which a more capable agent pretends to be less capable; (ii) an alignment--interpretability trade-off, where the two are substitutes in the instrument but complements in value; (iii) discipline via peer scoring; (iv) coupling rewards to induce competition among multiple agents; and (v) scalable oversight and reward shaping.

econ.TH

Jointly Satisfying Pareto Optimality and Justified Representation is NP-Hard in Approval-Based Multiwinner Voting

An open problem in approval-based multiwinner voting concerns whether we can efficiently compute committees that satisfy both justified representation and Pareto optimality. We answer this question negatively by proving that, on the domain of all profiles, outputting a committee satisfying both axioms is NP-hard. An initial proof was found by ChatGPT Astra. This was then verified and rewritten by the author.

cs.GT