CityReal: Human-Aligned Urban Behavior and City Dynamics Simulation with Large-Scale LLM Agents

Figure 6 presents an overview of CityReal. All agent attributes in the persona module are initialized from a proprietary survey-based dataset conducted in Japan. The attribute distributions closely match those observed in recent Japanese census statistics and lifestyle surveys e-stat2021timeuse. Each persona includes demographic attributes, household composition, life stage, occupation, salary, home and workplace or school locations, and psychographic traits. Big Five personality traits are discretized on a 3-point scale (1=low, 2=medium, 3=high). Home and workplace or school locations are assigned according to Japanese population density and OpenStreetMap data openstreetmap, ensuring realistic spatial distributions and feasible commutes. For reproducibility, researchers without access to our proprietary persona dataset may alternatively initialize agents from the open Nemotron-Personas-Japan dataset  (nvidia2025nemotronpersonasjapan), which provides similar synthetic Japanese personas grounded in real-world demographic, geographic, and personality-trait distributions.

CityReal calibrates agent behavior using population-level textual adapters, see Figure 8. Before running the full simulation, the alignment procedure searches for concise adapters attached to behavior modules such as daily planning, intention formation, place selection, transport selection, and reflection. These adapters are soft instructions that steer decisions toward target population statistics without overriding each agent’s persona, memory, needs, location, social context, or financial state. Once learned, adapters are reused across agents, simulated days, and counterfactual scenarios. Note that the orchestrator module is not included in the search.

The temporal memory retrieves the top $k_{1}=5$ entries from the past $\Delta t=24$ hours using cosine embedding similarity. Each memory entry stores {time, location, activity, observation, outcome, key}. Spatial memory stores beliefs about visited places, including affordability, convenience, crowding, and enjoyment. Beliefs for unvisited POIs are initialized from similar known places, using the $k=10$ most similar visited locations based on embedding distance. After each visit, the belief module produces a structured feedback of the experience and updates the corresponding spatial belief. Social beliefs over affinity, trust, and familiarity are updated after interactions.

Agents track short-term needs, including hunger, energy, safety, social connection, and financial security. Need thresholds for action interruption are $T_{\text{hunger}}=0.3$, $T_{\text{energy}}=0.3$, $T_{\text{safety}}=0.2$, and $T_{\text{social}}=0.2$, with priority order hunger $>$ safety $>$ energy $>$ social. Financial security is modeled separately from the immediate interruption needs. Rather than using a fixed interruption threshold, we represent it as a continuous financial pressure signal that conditions activity choice, destination choice, transport selection, and stay-home decisions. Let $B_{u}$ denote agent $u$’s monthly discretionary budget, $S_{u}^{t}$ its cumulative discretionary spending up to time $t$, and $A_{u}^{t}=\max(B_{u}-S_{u}^{t},0)$ its remaining available budget. Let $\rho_{t}\in[0,1]$ denote the fraction of the month elapsed. We define financial pressure as:

where higher values indicate that the agent is spending faster than expected for the current point in the month. Similarly, pressure increases when the remaining budget $A_{u}^{t}$ is lower than the expected remaining budget $(1-\rho_{t})B_{u}$. This signal biases agents toward lower-cost POIs, cheaper transport modes, fewer paid leisure activities, or staying at the current location, but it does not directly interrupt ongoing behavior.

The simulation operates with a 5-minute timestep, and all random seeds are fixed for reproducibility. Note that frontier LLM APIs may still exhibit minor nondeterminism due to backend-level implementation details. In detail, daily schedules are constructed from time blocks with a minimum granularity of 5 minutes, matching the resolution of human routine reporting in time-use surveys.

For pairwise human preference evaluation, we define the following criteria: (i) Naturalness: the extent to which actions align with the agent’s profile, habits, constraints, and context; (ii) Coherence: the logical progression and goal-directedness of activities across time; and (iii) Plausibility: the overall believability of the sequence given realistic urban behavior.

CityReal aligns agent behavior with population-level statistics through textual adapters (Figure 8). For each agent $u$ and behavior module $m$, the adapter $\phi^{u,m}$ is a short natural-language instruction appended to the module prompt. Let $\Phi_{t}$ denote the collection of adapters at search iteration $t$. In the initial state $\Phi_{0}$, all adapters are empty and the simulator reduces to the unadapted version. The alignment objective compares simulated aggregate statistics with target population statistics. Let $\mathcal{K}$ denote the set of available measures and let $\delta_{k}(\Phi_{t})$ be the discrepancy between the simulated and target value for measure $k$. We optimize the baseline-normalized objective:

where $P_{\mathrm{plaus}}$ penalizes loss of individual plausibility and $P_{\mathrm{div}}$ penalizes collapse in population diversity. Lower values of $R(\Phi_{t})$ indicate better alignment. The step return is defined as $r_{t}=R(\Phi_{t-1})-R(\Phi_{t})$, so positive return corresponds to a reduction in discrepancy.

We acknowledge that our method exhibits certain limitations. CityReal agents produce collective behaviors consistent with established urban mobility patterns, yet the underlying reasoning of individual decisions remains partially opaque due to the black-box nature of large language models. A plausible explanation is that LLMs internalize behavioral patterns from training corpora covering urban routines and daily life across diverse global contexts. Disentangling learned cultural norms from genuine generalization remains an open challenge for LLM-based simulation.

CityReal models socioeconomic constraints through salary-conditioned personas, tracks spending, and estimates a financial-pressure signal. This improves behavioral grounding, but also makes the simulation dependent on the quality of the underlying economic data. When income or expenditure information is coarse, financial pressure may only approximate the constraints faced by real residents, which can bias conclusions about economically driven differences in behavior.

Like other LLM-based simulators, CityReal may inherit demographic, cultural, or behavioral biases from the underlying model. Population-level alignment reduces this risk by grounding simulated behavior in observed aggregate statistics, and the financial-state module adds an explicit source of socioeconomic variation. However, aggregate statistics may still hide differences among minority or marginalized groups, especially when these groups are weakly represented in the calibration data. Although our experiments span multiple age groups, occupations, and income levels, evaluating alignment for underrepresented populations remains an important direction for future work.

CityReal uses a hybrid design in which LLMs handle decisions that require contextual reasoning, while explicit models track latent states such as financial pressure, beliefs, and short-term needs. This design improves both efficiency and interpretability. In preliminary experiments, LLMs were costly and unreliable for estimating scalar internal states, whereas explicit models were easier to inspect and control. Needs are modeled following established psychological frameworks mcleod2007maslow, and financial pressure is computed from tracked income and expenditure, making agent behavior more transparent and auditable.

Some experiments leverage GPT as an evaluator while the agents are generated with models from the same family, which may introduce stylistic bias in pairwise judgments. We mitigate this risk through cross-model validation with Gemini-3.5, but LLM-as-judge evaluation remains imperfect. Future work should incorporate larger-scale human evaluation and additional independent evaluators.

The alignment stage is essential for matching population-level statistics, but it depends on the quality of the calibration targets. If the target statistics are incomplete, biased, or too coarsely aggregated, the learned adapters may reproduce these limitations rather than recover the true behavioral distribution. Optimizing aggregate fit can also downweight rare but realistic behaviors, such as atypical routines or uncommon activity sequences. Although the plausibility and diversity penalties are designed to reduce this risk, preserving long-tail behavior remains challenging. Finally, adapters are tied to the target population and city context, and may need to be recalibrated when transferred to new urban environments.

CityReal also depends on sufficient local data for initialization. When demographic, spatial, or economic records are sparse, personas, spatial anchors, and financial states become less reliable. This weakens downstream modules such as belief formation and reflection, which rely on meaningful prior context and accumulated experience. Salary-informed initialization and empirical demographic distributions improve grounding, but they remain approximations of real individual profiles, especially for groups with limited observational coverage.

We summarize the main simulation loop of CityReal below:

We report the LLM cost and scalability of CityReal and compare it with CitySim, the closest baseline. Table 6 presents the daily token usage and estimated cost per 1,000 agents, using GPT-5.4-mini pricing. Because CityReal includes population-level alignment, we also report the one-time cost of adapter calibration. In our default setting, calibration is performed on a subset of agents with short simulation rollouts, costing approximately $248. This cost is incurred once for a target population and can be reused across agents, simulation days, and scenario analyses. The recurring daily cost of CityReal remains comparable to scalable LLM-agent baselines and substantially lower than prompt-heavy simulators such as GeAn. Costs scale approximately linearly with the agent population, and the daily cost for 1,000 agents remains much lower than involving real humans in comparable social studies.

This section provides a systematic comparison of CityReal against recent agent-based urban simulation systems. Table 7 summarizes agent modeling dimensions, including alignment, adaptive memory, intention modeling, financial state, social interaction, and scalability. Table 8 focuses on spatial and mobility reasoning.

To assess whether interaction traces resemble those of real users or are indicative of AI-generated behavior, we employ an LLM-based evaluator. This judge is prompted as follows:

To support qualitative analysis and scenario exploration, we develop an interactive interface for visualizing agent behavior and city-level dynamics. Figure 15 illustrates the interface, which visualizes agent trajectories, activities, intentions, schedules, mobility patterns, and contextual information in real time. It also allows users to inspect individual agents, compare behaviors across populations, and analyze how routines evolve under different environmental conditions or interventions. This interface is designed to support researchers in understanding not only aggregate simulation outcomes, but also the underlying behavioral processes that generate them.