Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.22407

Towards Adaptive and Real-Survey-Aligned Simulated Urban Mobility Behaviour of Generative Agents

Yves Bru·Kamaldeep Singh Oberoi·Benoit Gaudou
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In existing agent-based simulations of multimodal urban mobility, agents, representing humans, choose their travel modes either using discrete choice or machine learning models fitted on structured travel survey data, or with rules explicitly written by the domain experts. Such approaches fix a priori the agents' possible behaviour space. Hence, a factor absent from variables or rules cannot affect agents' decisions. In reality, choosing a transport mode is a multidimensional decision in which objective and subjective factors intertwine and change over time. Integrating such complexity into a city-scale multimodal mobility simulation remains a challenge. Generative agents (GAs) built on large language models promise to respond to this challenge because they carry decision heuristics that travel surveys do not record. However, to the best of our knowledge, aligning their decisions with real household travel surveys remains an open question. In this paper, we build an agent-based model of daily multimodal mobility for Toulouse (France). We compare the performance of fifteen decision-makers (simple baselines, models fitted on the survey, GAs with minimal and tuned prompts, and a typed classifier) on the real household travel survey. Our results show that GAs with tuned prompts come close to the fitted models on the modal split of a simulated day without transport disruptions, but not trip by trip. GAs also react when unforeseen events occur. The recently released Jev-1.13 TypeSafe classifier gives surprisingly great results, showing that generating output text is not necessary. The results presented in this paper would be of interest to transport policy makers and service providers looking to apply generative agent-based modelling for improving urban mobility services.

Explore related subjects

cs.MAcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yves Bru, Kamaldeep Singh Oberoi, Benoit Gaudou. 2026-10-14. Towards Adaptive and Real-Survey-Aligned Simulated Urban Mobility Behaviour of Generative Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.22407

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning Large-Scale Competitive Team Behaviors with Mean-Field Interactions

While multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has been proven effective across both collaborative and competitive tasks, existing algorithms often struggle to scale to large populations of agents. Recent advancements in mean-field (MF) theory provide scalable solutions by approximating population interactions as a continuum, yet most existing frameworks focus exclusively on either fully cooperative or purely competitive settings. To bridge this gap, we introduce MF-MAPPO, a mean-field extension of PPO designed for zero-sum team games that integrate intra-team cooperation with inter-team competition. MF-MAPPO employs a shared actor and a minimally informed critic per team and is trained directly on finite-population simulators, thereby enabling deployment to realistic scenarios with thousands of agents. We further show that MF-MAPPO naturally extends to partially observable settings through a simple gradient-regularized training scheme. Our evaluation utilizes large-scale benchmark scenarios using our own testing simulation platform for MF team games (MFEnv), including offense-defense battlefield tasks as well as variants of population-based rock-paper-scissors games that admit analytical solutions, for benchmarking. Across these benchmarks, MF-MAPPO outperforms existing methods and exhibits complex, heterogeneous behaviors, demonstrating the effectiveness of combining mean-field theory and MARL techniques at scale.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Does Centralized Learning Help Embodied Agents Coordinate, and When Can a Tabular Study Tell?

Tabular studies are a common way to compare independent and centralized multi-agent learners, because they avoid function approximation. A natural expectation is that centralized learning, which learns joint actions, helps agents coordinate, especially when their bodies make solo success hard. Earlier work tests this only in parts: it measures coordination for one learning method, compares methods with the agents' bodies fixed, or varies speed but reports only how well the team did. We test it in a predator-prey environment, where teammates cooperatively hunt together while two teams compete. We compare independent Q-learning (IQL) with central Q-learning (CQL) in all four predator and prey pairings, under limits on speed and stamina, on a 5x5 and an 8x8 grid trained for 200,000 episodes each, and check that the agents learn on both. We measure coordination directly, with predictions for the main measurement fixed in advance. In this task, where one predator can capture prey alone, we find three things. First, CQL costs its agents in both roles on both grids, and its predators coordinate no more than IQL's. Second, its one benefit comes from acting on the best joint action: this cut capture time by 42% on the small grid with faster prey and unlimited stamina, but helped nowhere on the larger grid, where the best joint action had mostly never been tried. Third, on the larger grid a tie-breaking default decided which method won, even though the agents had passed a learning check. A tabular comparison can therefore be trusted only if it also checks how much of the state space the agents covered and implements the methods alike. We propose simple checks for both.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Group Perspective Matters: Regulating Debate Relationships Can Mitigate Blind Conformity in Multi-Agent Debate

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) improves the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) through multi-round interaction. However, LLMs in MAD are highly susceptible to blind conformity. Existing individual evaluation methods, typically based on confidence or perplexity, fail to reflect the correctness of reasoning and may even exacerbate blind conformity. To address this, we shift the perspective from individual evaluation to group interaction. We define mutual referencing among LLMs as \textbf{Debate Relationships} and recognize that regulating these relationships is the key to mitigating blind conformity. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for \textbf{D}ynamically r\textbf{E}gulating deb\textbf{A}te \textbf{R}elationships (DEAR) from the group perspective. At first, DEAR quantifies consensus and divergence as \textit{group evidence} to capture the debate state. Then, DEAR operates through three stages: 1) What: perceiving group consultation tendency and uncertainty; 2) Who: introducing a Selection RL-Agent to dynamically select reference peers; and 3) How: adopting a Behavior RL-Agent to adaptively adjust generation behaviors. Notably, we formulate the execution of the two RL-Agents as a sequential decision-making process, jointly optimizing via multi-agent reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DEAR achieves superior performance while significantly reducing token consumption.

cs.MA↗