Large language models replicate and predict human cooperation across experiments in game theory

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used both to make decisions in domains such as health, education and law, and to simulate human behavior. Yet how closely LLMs mirror actual human decision-making remains poorly understood. This gap is critical: misalignment could produce harmful outcomes in practical applications, while failure to replicate human behavior renders LLMs ineffective for social simulations. Here, we address this gap by developing a digital twin of game-theoretic experiments and introducing a systematic prompting and probing framework for machine-behavioral evaluation. Testing three open-source models (Llama, Mistral and Qwen), we find that Llama reproduces human cooperation patterns with high fidelity, capturing human deviations from rational choice theory, while Qwen aligns closely with Nash equilibrium predictions. Notably, we achieved population-level behavioral replication without persona-based prompting, simplifying the simulation process. Extending beyond the original human-tested games, we generate and preregister testable hypotheses for novel game configurations outside the original parameter grid. Our findings demonstrate that appropriately calibrated LLMs can replicate aggregate human behavioral patterns and enable systematic exploration of unexplored experimental spaces, offering a complementary approach to traditional research in the social and behavioral sciences that generates new empirical predictions about human social decision-making.

hyperFA*IR: A hypergeometric approach to fair rankings with finite candidate pool

Ranking algorithms play a pivotal role in decision-making processes across diverse domains, from search engines to job applications. When rankings directly impact individuals, ensuring fairness becomes essential, particularly for groups that are marginalised or misrepresented in the data. Most of the existing group fairness frameworks often rely on ensuring proportional representation of protected groups. However, these approaches face limitations in accounting for the stochastic nature of ranking processes or the finite size of candidate pools. To this end, we present hyperFA*IR, a framework for assessing and enforcing fairness in rankings drawn from a finite set of candidates. It relies on a generative process based on the hypergeometric distribution, which models real-world scenarios by sampling without replacement from fixed group sizes. This approach improves fairness assessment when top-$k$ selections are large relative to the pool or when protected groups are small. We compare our approach to the widely used binomial model, which treats each draw as independent with fixed probability, and demonstrate$-$both analytically and empirically$-$that our method more accurately reproduces the statistical properties of sampling from a finite population. To operationalise this framework, we propose a Monte Carlo-based algorithm that efficiently detects unfair rankings by avoiding computationally expensive parameter tuning. Finally, we adapt our generative approach to define affirmative action policies by introducing weights into the sampling process.