Paper detail

Simulating Multi-Stakeholder Decision-Making with Generative Agents in Urban Planning

Reaching consensus in urban planning is a complex process often hindered by prolonged negotiations, trade-offs, power dynamics, and competing stakeholder interests, resulting in inefficiencies and inequities. Advances in large language models (LLMs), with their increasing capabilities in knowledge transfer, reasoning, and planning, have enabled the development of multi-generative agent systems, offering a promising approach to simulating discussions and interactions among diverse stakeholders on contentious topics. However, applying such systems also carries significant societal and ethical risks, including misrepresentation, privacy concerns, and biases stemming from opinion convergence among agents, hallucinations caused by insufficient or biased prompts, and the inherent limitations of foundation models. To evaluate the influence of these factors, we incorporate varying levels of real-world survey data and demographic detail to test agents' performance under two decision-making value frameworks: altruism-driven and interest-driven, using a real-world urban rezoning challenge. This approach evaluates the influence of demographic factors such as race, gender, and age on collective decision-making in the design of multi-generative agent systems. Our experimental results reveal that integrating demographic and life-value data enhances the diversity and stability of agent outputs. In addition, communication among generated agents improves the quality of collective reasoning. These findings provide a predictive framework for decision-makers to anticipate stakeholder reactions, including concerns, objections, and support. By enabling iterative refinement of proposals before public release, the simulated approach fosters more equitable and cost-effective decisions in urban planning.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.