Mitigating Identity Essentialism in LLM Agents with Longitudinal Life Trajectories
arXiv:2608.196212026-08-21
Giving AI characters a life story, not just a demographic label, stops them from acting like clones of their group
When AI language models simulate survey respondents using only demographic profiles, agents from the same group end up answering too similarly to each other while differing too sharply from other groups, a pattern the researchers call identity essentialism. They built LifeMem, a memory system that stores a person's life events over time and gradually bakes accumulated experience into a small trainable module per agent. Tested on two long-running surveys with three different language models, LifeMem agents matched real human response patterns, diversity, and opinion changes over time better than existing methods.
What they did
Static profile-based agents (given only demographics like age, gender, education) showed excessive similarity within the same demographic group and excessive difference between groups; on 2,000 World Values Survey respondents, real humans showed almost no group separation (silhouette score -0.02) while AI agents showed clear separation (0.19).
The researchers trace this to two causes: demographic labels are too sparse to represent a real person, and stuffing information into a prompt alone doesn't let experience persistently accumulate in an agent.
Their fix, LifeMem, combines a structured memory that retrieves relevant past life events (like graduating, marrying, changing jobs) for each question, with agent-specific LoRA adapters that gradually train each agent's parameters on their accumulated history, similar to how the brain moves memories from fast short-term storage to slower long-term storage.
Across the Add Health (US adolescent-to-adult health survey) and Understanding Society (UK household panel survey) datasets and three language models (Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512, Qwen3.5-9B), LifeMem agents better matched human response distributions, within-group diversity, and how opinions shift across life stages.
Simply retrieving more relevant past events into the prompt (up to 180 events) improved results only up to a point (around 40-90 events) and then plateaued or worsened, while LifeMem achieved better results using just 5 retrieved events per question, showing its gains come from the persistent parametric memory, not just more retrieval.
Figure 1: Static demographic conditioning produces a pattern consistent with identity essentialism. We divide 2,000 randomly sampled WVS wave 7 respondents (19) into three socioeconomic status groups and compare human responses with those of profile-conditioned Llama-8B agents. Each individual’s responses are concatenated and projected into a two-dimensional PCA space. The separate projections show greater within-group variation and overlap among humans (silhouette −0.02), whereas agents exhibit stronger within-group compression and between-group separation (silhouette 0.19). Silhouette scores are computed in the original response space before PCA projection.
Table 1: Overall results on Add Health and Understanding Society across three models. KL Div., WG Gap, Ent. Gap, and Trans. JS denote KL divergence, within-group pairwise distance gap, normalized entropy gap, and transition-distribution JS divergence. Lower values are better for all metrics. Bold marks the best result for each model and metric; LifeMem is shaded light gray. ∗ indicates results significantly worse than LifeMem in a two-sided paired t-test conducted over shared questions (p<0.05).
Category
Method
Add Health
Understanding Society
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
Trans. JS ↓
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Static Conditioning
Direct
14.7551∗
0.5596∗
0.7053∗
15.3734∗
0.5561∗
0.7076∗
0.4580∗
Profile
8.6719∗
0.3951∗
0.5112∗
7.1522∗
0.3835∗
0.4972∗
0.3886∗
Diversity-Oriented Prompting
Multilingual
10.4654∗
0.3733∗
0.5035∗
11.7367∗
0.3446∗
0.4763∗
0.4570∗
Anti-Stereotype
9.8270∗
0.4163∗
0.5452∗
8.1485∗
0.4066∗
0.5120∗
0.3592∗
Non-Parametric Memory
SimVBG
6.8058∗
0.3380∗
0.4345∗
6.2912∗
0.3544∗
0.4730∗
0.3709∗
Full History
6.1176∗
0.3079∗
0.3974∗
4.9344∗
0.3198∗
0.4004∗
0.3633∗
Event RAG
5.8264∗
0.2964∗
0.3951∗
5.2935∗
0.3163∗
0.3991∗
0.3648∗
Control Baseline
Random Event
6.8821∗
0.3524∗
0.4538∗
5.5673∗
0.3429∗
0.4539∗
0.3803∗
Proposed Method
LifeMem
4.0635
0.2309
0.3207
3.4529
0.2886
0.3742
0.3331
Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512
Static Conditioning
Direct
15.5952∗
0.5679∗
0.7161∗
15.4925∗
0.5648∗
0.7182∗
0.5076∗
Profile
8.8060∗
0.4120∗
0.5263∗
6.8298∗
0.3622∗
0.4622∗
0.3609
Diversity-Oriented Prompting
Multilingual
12.7028∗
0.3597∗
0.5129∗
13.1824∗
0.3942∗
0.5350∗
0.4889∗
Anti-Stereotype
10.0458∗
0.4339∗
0.5537∗
8.7660∗
0.3946∗
0.5066∗
0.3757
Non-Parametric Memory
SimVBG
6.9946∗
0.3427∗
0.4566∗
4.8323∗
0.3272∗
0.4156∗
0.3610
Full History
4.7175∗
0.2893∗
0.3817∗
3.8053∗
0.2927∗
0.3413∗
0.3528
Event RAG
5.4368∗
0.2849∗
0.3895∗
4.3342∗
0.2887∗
0.3413∗
0.4693∗
Control Baseline
Random Event
6.1787∗
0.3578∗
0.4647∗
4.7275∗
0.3156∗
0.4048∗
0.3924
Proposed Method
LifeMem
2.2959
0.1928
0.2783
1.9659
0.2277
0.2659
0.3399
Qwen3.5-9B
Static Conditioning
Direct
13.9957∗
0.5482∗
0.6923∗
15.9998∗
0.5559∗
0.7080∗
0.4452∗
Profile
8.0174∗
0.4004∗
0.5093∗
5.3214∗
0.3463∗
0.4325∗
0.3471∗
Diversity-Oriented Prompting
Multilingual
7.7194∗
0.2211
0.3395
10.9903∗
0.3438∗
0.4728∗
0.4405∗
Anti-Stereotype
7.7407∗
0.3743∗
0.4770∗
6.0185∗
0.3422∗
0.4254∗
0.3356∗
Non-Parametric Memory
SimVBG
5.7090∗
0.3307∗
0.4311∗
4.4864∗
0.3182∗
0.3889∗
0.3298∗
Full History
4.5266
0.2599
0.3432
3.7659∗
0.2979∗
0.3441∗
0.3203∗
Event RAG
4.3701
0.2676
0.3574
3.5507∗
0.2673∗
0.3070
0.3394∗
Control Baseline
Random Event
6.0741∗
0.3625∗
0.4584∗
3.7848∗
0.3031∗
0.3707∗
0.3466∗
Figure 2: Overview of LifeMem. (a) Individual life trajectories contain diverse longitudinal experiences. (b) Structured memory supports explicit retrieval, while agent-specific LoRA adapters consolidate experiences into parametric memory through recursive updates. (c) The resulting agent state evolves across life stages. (d) Agents are initialized from similar demographic profiles, which may produce homogeneous opinions. (e) LifeMem produces diverse and dynamic opinions.
Table 2: Ablation study of LifeMem on Add Health and Understanding Society. KL Div., WG Gap, Ent. Gap, and Trans. JS denote KL divergence, within-group pairwise distance gap, normalized entropy gap, and transition-distribution JS divergence. All metrics are lower-is-better. Bold marks the best result for each model and metric; LifeMem (Full) is shaded light gray. ∗ indicates results significantly worse than LifeMem (Full) in a two-sided paired t-test conducted over shared questions (p<0.05).
Method
Add Health
Understanding Society
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
Trans. JS ↓
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
LifeMem (Full)
4.0635
0.2309
0.3207
3.4529
0.2886
0.3742
0.3331
LifeMem w/o Param. Mem.
5.3517∗
0.2554∗
0.3436
5.0874∗
0.3259∗
0.4150∗
0.3594∗
LifeMem w/o Struct. Mem.
6.2815∗
0.3132∗
0.4164∗
4.7555∗
0.3379∗
0.4318∗
0.3614∗
Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512
LifeMem (Full)
2.2959
0.1928
0.2783
1.9659
0.2277
0.2659
0.3399
LifeMem w/o Param. Mem.
4.6504∗
0.2516∗
0.3456∗
3.8454∗
0.2810∗
0.3389∗
0.3838
LifeMem w/o Struct. Mem.
3.3799∗
0.2627∗
0.3597∗
2.4410∗
0.2483∗
0.3093∗
0.3443
Qwen3.5-9B
LifeMem (Full)
4.1177
0.2723
0.3601
2.6879
0.2519
0.2932
0.3060
LifeMem w/o Param. Mem.
4.4295
0.2733
0.3604
3.4224∗
0.2738∗
0.3193∗
0.3411∗
LifeMem w/o Struct. Mem.
6.0934∗
0.3651∗
0.4760∗
3.2797∗
0.2842∗
0.3430∗
0.3235∗
Figure 3: Effect of Event RAG retrieval depth on Add Health with Llama-8B across 100 agents. We report alignment metrics, runtime, and input tokens for top-K∈[1,180]. Stars mark LifeMem at K=5. The shaded bands indicate standard deviation across waves.
Table 3: Average per-question inference latency with Llama-8B. AH and USoc denote Add Health and Understanding Society. Time is reported in milliseconds, and Rel. denotes latency relative to Direct. Retrieval latency is included for Event RAG and LifeMem. For LifeMem, the subscripted +x indicates the LoRA adapter-loading latency. Rel. excludes the one-time LoRA adapter-loading latency.
Method
AH
USoc
Time
Rel.
Time
Rel.
Direct
13.8
1.0
14.4
1.0
Profile
65.2
4.7
70.8
4.9
Multilingual
24.5
1.8
26.5
1.8
Anti-Stereotype
66.8
4.9
72.9
5.1
SimVBG
196.4
14.3
196.4
13.7
Full History
334.5
24.3
318.1
22.1
Event RAG
1094.2
79.5
956.2
66.5
Random Event
73.0
5.3
79.8
5.6
LifeMem
161.7+0.9
11.7
154.5+1.4
10.7
Figure 4: PCA visualization of LifeMem’s agent-specific LoRA states for 100 Understanding Society agents using Llama-8B. Points represent states after each wave, with trajectories connecting the same agent over time. Agent states increasingly diverge as life histories accumulate.
Table 4: Number of respondents in the public-use Add Health files across Waves I–VI.
Wave
Respondents
Wave
Respondents
I
6,504
IV
5,114
II
4,834
V
4,196
III
4,882
VI
3,937
Figure 5: Effect of life-event coverage in LifeMem on Add Health with Llama-8B. We simulate 100 agents while varying the maximum number of life events available per wave from 5 to 180. Curves report KL divergence, within-group pairwise distance gap, and normalized entropy gap. The shaded bands indicate standard deviation across waves. Increasing life-event coverage generally improves alignment with human response distributions and diversity.
Table 5: Number of respondents in the public-use Understanding Society files across Waves 1–15.
Wave
Respondents
Wave
Respondents
1
77,308
9
52,694
2
77,495
10
50,113
3
70,671
11
46,965
4
65,626
12
43,577
5
61,512
13
41,601
6
64,712
14
55,400
7
59,941
15
48,896
8
56,608
Figure 6: Per-agent storage with Llama-8B as life events accumulate. The fixed-size LoRA adapter remains constant, while structured life-event storage grows with trajectory length.
Table 6: Numbers of demographic, life-event, and evaluation variables selected for each dataset and survey wave. Demo., Event, and Eval. denote demographic, life-event, and evaluation variables, respectively. UKHLS denotes Understanding Society.
Dataset
Wave
Demo.
Event
Eval.
Add Health
1
73
172
75
2
65
171
75
3
76
179
56
4
65
179
72
5
70
171
59
6
75
179
53
UKHLS
1
68
72
11
2
62
37
11
3
67
55
38
4
69
55
37
5
61
69
49
6
66
85
41
7
62
54
26
8
69
47
16
9
68
68
34
10
68
44
28
11
71
56
50
12
65
57
64
13
70
65
25
14
70
66
43
15
65
89
45
Figure 7: PCA visualization of agent-specific LoRA states learned by LifeMem for 100 agents on Add Health with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct under maximum life-event counts of 5, 20, 40, and 90. Points denote LifeMem agent states after each survey wave, and connected trajectories trace the same agent over time. With fewer events, different agents remain relatively concentrated; richer histories produce clearer agent-specific differentiation in later waves.
Table 7: Default configuration for agent-specific LoRA updates.
Setting
Value
LoRA rank
8
LoRA scaling coefficient
16
LoRA dropout
0
Target modules
q_proj, v_proj
o_proj, down_proj
Learning rate
1×10−4
Training epochs per update
2
Training batch size
16
Gradient accumulation steps
1
Maximum gradient norm
1.0
Figure 8: PCA visualization of agent-specific LoRA states learned by LifeMem for 100 agents on Add Health with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Points represent agent states after each survey wave, and connected trajectories trace the same agent over time. Colors indicate survey waves.
Table 8: Demographic variables used to define groups for the within-group pairwise distance metric. UKHLS denotes Understanding Society.
Figure 9: PCA visualization of agent-specific LoRA states learned by LifeMem for 100 agents on Add Health with Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512. Points represent agent states after each survey wave, and connected trajectories trace the same agent over time. Colors indicate survey waves.
Table 9: Robustness across respondent samples on Add Health and Understanding Society. Results report means across three independently sampled respondent sets generated with seeds 42, 43, and 44, with the corresponding ± standard deviations shown as subscripts. Each sample contains 100 respondents per dataset. KL Div., WG Gap, and Ent. Gap denote KL divergence, within-group pairwise distance gap, and normalized entropy gap. Lower values are better for all metrics. Bold marks the best mean result for each model and metric; LifeMem is shaded light gray.
Category
Method
Add Health
Understanding Society
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Static Conditioning
Direct
14.678±0.192
0.551±0.009
0.698±0.009
15.317±0.144
0.552±0.004
0.698±0.008
Profile
9.147±0.450
0.389±0.006
0.512±0.004
7.234±0.072
0.376±0.006
0.486±0.011
Diversity-Oriented Prompting
Multilingual
10.459±0.109
0.368±0.007
0.497±0.006
11.653±0.074
0.341±0.004
0.472±0.004
Anti-Stereotype
10.317±0.470
0.425±0.010
0.556±0.011
8.372±0.197
0.401±0.006
0.515±0.004
Non-Parametric Memory
SimVBG
7.540±0.639
0.343±0.004
0.452±0.015
5.950±0.315
0.345±0.008
0.454±0.017
Full History
6.462±0.400
0.316±0.007
0.407±0.009
4.658±0.342
0.311±0.008
0.388±0.011
Event RAG
6.086±0.307
0.291±0.008
0.388±0.011
5.068±0.209
0.308±0.011
0.393±0.008
Control Baseline
Random Event
7.399±0.496
0.347±0.005
0.455±0.002
5.443±0.125
0.341±0.003
0.446±0.007
Proposed Method
LifeMem
4.351±0.354
0.240±0.008
0.325±0.008
3.320±0.202
0.280±0.008
0.371±0.009
Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512
Static Conditioning
Direct
15.533±0.248
0.560±0.009
0.710±0.008
15.408±0.083
0.561±0.004
0.713±0.006
Profile
8.558±0.229
0.395±0.015
0.511±0.014
6.065±0.674
0.346±0.015
0.437±0.022
Diversity-Oriented Prompting
Multilingual
12.705±0.200
0.350±0.011
0.502±0.011
13.114±0.070
0.393±0.002
0.532±0.003
Anti-Stereotype
9.842±0.355
0.425±0.009
0.542±0.011
8.243±0.501
0.381±0.012
0.490±0.014
Non-Parametric Memory
SimVBG
6.526±0.406
0.325±0.020
0.437±0.018
4.744±0.272
0.303±0.021
0.394±0.020
Full History
5.271±0.550
0.303±0.013
0.391±0.009
3.462±0.623
0.259±0.041
0.321±0.033
Event RAG
5.198±0.214
0.272±0.011
0.373±0.015
4.128±0.237
0.273±0.014
0.334±0.008
Control Baseline
Random Event
5.887±0.357
0.348±0.009
0.452±0.011
4.467±0.226
0.307±0.008
0.393±0.010
Proposed Method
LifeMem
2.164±0.243
0.195±0.005
0.272±0.010
1.850±0.144
0.207±0.020
0.251±0.014
Qwen3.5-9B
Static Conditioning
Direct
13.960±0.140
0.543±0.006
0.687±0.007
16.041±0.044
0.551±0.004
0.703±0.005
Profile
7.690±0.289
0.382±0.020
0.492±0.018
5.431±0.159
0.313±0.029
0.394±0.034
Diversity-Oriented Prompting
Multilingual
7.550±0.192
0.218±0.005
0.333±0.006
11.029±0.034
0.341±0.003
0.469±0.003
Anti-Stereotype
7.374±0.418
0.355±0.021
0.469±0.012
6.323±0.348
0.312±0.026
0.400±0.024
Non-Parametric Memory
SimVBG
5.518±0.188
0.312±0.017
0.412±0.018
4.839±0.306
0.304±0.013
0.384±0.011
Full History
4.486±0.091
0.254±0.005
0.341±0.002
3.488±0.251
0.273±0.024
0.329±0.014
Event RAG
4.323±0.141
0.263±0.010
0.348±0.011
3.659±0.200
0.248±0.020
0.296±0.010
Control Baseline
Random Event
5.937±0.154
0.351±0.013
0.452±0.011
3.938±0.133
0.287±0.014
0.356±0.013
Figure 10: PCA visualization of agent-specific LoRA states learned by LifeMem for 100 agents on Add Health with Qwen3.5-9B. Points represent agent states after each survey wave, and connected trajectories trace the same agent over time. Colors indicate survey waves.
Table 10: Robustness of the LifeMem ablations across respondent samples. Results report means across three independently sampled respondent sets generated with seeds 42, 43, and 44, with the corresponding ± standard deviations shown as subscripts. KL Div., WG Gap, and Ent. Gap denote KL divergence, within-group pairwise distance gap, and normalized entropy gap. All metrics are lower-is-better. Bold marks the best mean result for each model and metric; LifeMem (Full) is shaded light gray.
Method
Add Health
Understanding Society
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
LifeMem (Full)
4.351±0.354
0.240±0.008
0.325±0.008
3.320±0.202
0.280±0.008
0.371±0.009
LifeMem w/o Param. Mem.
5.655±0.302
0.266±0.011
0.354±0.012
4.744±0.318
0.308±0.016
0.402±0.014
LifeMem w/o Struct. Mem.
6.161±0.197
0.310±0.003
0.413±0.005
4.313±0.413
0.317±0.018
0.418±0.013
Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512
LifeMem (Full)
2.164±0.243
0.195±0.005
0.272±0.010
1.850±0.144
0.207±0.020
0.251±0.014
LifeMem w/o Param. Mem.
4.478±0.210
0.246±0.006
0.338±0.006
3.680±0.206
0.267±0.012
0.329±0.010
LifeMem w/o Struct. Mem.
2.981±0.428
0.242±0.028
0.327±0.040
2.268±0.152
0.236±0.011
0.300±0.012
Qwen3.5-9B
LifeMem (Full)
4.015±0.259
0.266±0.009
0.354±0.010
2.622±0.140
0.228±0.021
0.276±0.016
LifeMem w/o Param. Mem.
4.424±0.040
0.267±0.010
0.356±0.009
3.619±0.247
0.253±0.019
0.304±0.014
LifeMem w/o Struct. Mem.
6.057±0.435
0.348±0.018
0.459±0.017
3.521±0.270
0.274±0.013
0.342±0.015
Figure 11: PCA visualization of agent-specific LoRA states learned by LifeMem for 100 agents on Understanding Society with Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512. Points represent agent states after each survey wave, and connected trajectories trace the same agent over time. Colors indicate survey waves.
Table 11: Valid response rates across different methods and backbone models on Add Health and Understanding Society. A response is considered valid when it can be mapped to one of the predefined answer options. Higher values indicate fewer missing or unparsable responses.
Method
Add Health
Understanding Society
Llama-3.1-8B
Ministral-3-8B
Qwen3.5-9B
Llama-3.1-8B
Ministral-3-8B
Qwen3.5-9B
Human
87.37%
64.31%
Direct
97.51%
96.09%
97.51%
91.33%
90.87%
92.27%
Profile
97.45%
96.84%
97.51%
91.58%
91.14%
93.04%
Multilingual
92.87%
96.14%
97.51%
89.07%
91.01%
92.00%
Anti-Stereotype
97.45%
97.17%
97.51%
91.54%
90.97%
93.29%
SimVBG
97.40%
97.30%
97.49%
91.60%
91.71%
93.02%
Full History
96.84%
97.16%
97.51%
91.73%
91.35%
93.34%
Event RAG
97.24%
96.99%
97.45%
91.63%
91.04%
93.15%
Random Event
97.33%
97.18%
97.51%
91.72%
91.05%
93.11%
LifeMem
97.28%
96.41%
97.35%
92.28%
91.59%
93.34%
Figure 12: PCA visualization of agent-specific LoRA states learned by LifeMem for 100 agents on Understanding Society with Qwen3.5-9B. Points represent agent states after each survey wave, and connected trajectories trace the same agent over time. Colors indicate survey waves.
Table 12: Effect of the temporal decay coefficient αret in LifeMem on Add Health with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Lower values are better for all metrics. Bold marks the best result for each metric, and the setting used in the main experiments is shaded light gray.
𝜶𝐫𝐞𝐭
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
0.50
4.394
0.228
0.351
0.70
4.396
0.222
0.346
0.80
4.260
0.2201
0.342
0.90
4.063
0.231
0.321
0.95
4.487
0.2202
0.344
1.00
4.414
0.224
0.349
Table 13: Effect of the replay loss weight η in LifeMem on Add Health with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Lower values are better for all metrics. Bold marks the best result for each metric, and the setting used in the main experiments is shaded light gray.
𝜼
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
0.00
4.381
0.215
0.345
0.25
4.353
0.218
0.342
0.50
4.064
0.231
0.321
0.75
4.370
0.219
0.341
1.00
4.329
0.218
0.343
Table 14: Effect of retriever choice on Event RAG and LifeMem with Ministral-3-8B-Instruct-2512. Lower values are better for all metrics. Bold marks the best overall result, and LifeMem is shaded light gray.
Method
Retriever
Add Health
Understanding Society
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
Event RAG
BM25
5.357
0.295
0.389
4.237
0.290
0.356
all-MiniLM-L6-v2
4.650
0.252
0.346
3.845
0.281
0.339
E5-large-v2
5.537
0.294
0.399
4.466
0.299
0.355
BGE-M3
5.437
0.285
0.390
4.334
0.289
0.341
BGE-M3 + BGE-Reranker-v2-M3
5.035
0.280
0.375
3.597
0.277
0.322
LifeMem
all-MiniLM-L6-v2
2.296
0.193
0.278
1.966
0.228
0.266
Table 15: Effect of the LoRA rank r in LifeMem on Add Health with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Lower values are better for all metrics. Bold marks the best result for each metric, and the setting used in the main experiments is shaded light gray.
𝒓
KL Div. ↓
WG Gap ↓
Ent. Gap ↓
4
4.876
0.227
0.356
8
4.063
0.231
0.321
16
4.041
0.196
0.326
32
3.289
0.165
0.298
Why it matters
As researchers increasingly use AI agents instead of costly surveys to study public opinion and behavior, this work exposes a concrete risk that such simulations can exaggerate stereotypes and erase individual variation within demographic groups. It offers a practical design for anyone building AI-based survey respondents, focus groups, or social simulations who needs the results to be trustworthy.
Terms in this paper
identity essentialism · the biased assumption that everyone in a social category (e.g. by gender, race) shares the same fundamental traits
LoRA adapter · a small add-on module trained instead of retraining an entire large AI model, used to cheaply customize its behavior
silhouette score · a metric showing how tightly data points cluster within a group versus how separated groups are; higher means clearer group separation
RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) · a technique where an AI looks up relevant stored information before generating an answer
longitudinal survey · a survey that follows and re-interviews the same people repeatedly over many years
Original abstract (English)
Large language models (LLMs) offer a scalable approach to social simulation, but their credibility depends on how agents are constructed. Existing methods can partially reproduce population-level patterns, yet often fail to capture human-like diversity. Our analysis shows that static-profile agents exhibit stronger demographic separation and within-group compression than humans, a pattern consistent with identity essentialism: demographic labels can encourage models to treat group-average tendencies as individual traits, homogenizing responses within groups. We argue that this limitation arises from two related factors: sparse, static agent representations and the limited ability of prompt-only memory to persistently integrate experience. Inspired by complementary memory systems, we propose LifeMem, a longitudinal memory framework that combines structured life-event retrieval with agent-specific parametric memory for experience integration. Experiments on Add Health and Understanding Society with three LLMs show that LifeMem improves alignment with human data in terms of response distributions, overall and within-group diversity, and patterns of within-person response change across life stages. These findings highlight the value of longitudinal life-event memory for constructing more faithful and dynamically evolving social agents.
Authors · Hexi Wang, Yujia Zhou, Bangde Du, Weihang Su, Xinyuan Cao, Qingyi Pan, Qingyao Ai, Yueyue Wu, Min Zhang, Yiqun Liu
![Figure 3: Effect of Event RAG retrieval depth on Add Health with Llama-8B across 100 agents. We report alignment metrics, runtime, and input tokens for top-K∈[1,180]. Stars mark LifeMem at K=5. The shaded bands indicate standard deviation across waves.](https://media.metallab.ai/papers/2608.19621/f2.svg)
