arXiv:2511. 17813v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-based simulations can enable controlled studies of civic deliberation, but current systems lack speaker-attributed data and methods for evaluating long-form institutional behavior.
By Scott Merrill, Shashank Srivastava
arXiv:2609.15849v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM per...
By Ahmed Wali, Hassaan Tayyab
arXiv:2608.29803v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs...
By Lin Chen, Yitong Chen, Yong Li
arXiv:2608.29198v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly encourage users to disclose personal profiles for tailored assistance, measuring their political alignment...
By Li-Ni Fu, Chang-Chih Meng, Chien-Hua Chen, Hen-Hsen Huang, I-Chen Wu
The paper introduces “Persuasio”, a multi‑agent dialogue platform that uses a formal argumentation theory to adjudicate winners in free‑text debates. Using this system, the authors generated 192 debates on a UK political topic involving humans and large language models (LLMs), and evaluated 22 interlocutors through automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgments across 1,386 annotation instances. The results show a consistent decoupling between subjective persuasiveness—where LLMs dominate—and formal argumentative strength—where humans remain competitive, with multi‑agent and retrieval‑augmented variants widening this gap.
By Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson, Anthony G. Cohn
arXiv:2606. 03137v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based multi-agent simulation offers a promising way to study social interaction, deliberation, and collective opinion dynamics.
By Kaiqi Yang, Tai-Quan Peng, Sanguk Lee, Hui Liu
The study introduces a World Values Survey–grounded simulation framework to test whether large language model agents can faithfully represent diverse human value systems. In about 4,000 conversations with 1,200 personas across three models, more than half of the agents failed to express their assigned value profiles from the start, and only 2–7% drifted over time. The results show systematic deviations from the intended value distributions and reveal that simulated dialogues differ from human discussions in their balance of stylistic consistency and semantic diversity.
By Farah Atif, Sougata Saha, Monojit Choudhury
arXiv:2608. 10186v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed in settings that require collective reasoning on complex, value-laden problems.
By Maurice Flechtner
arXiv:2603. 23841v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity.
By Rohan Khetan, Ashna Khetan
arXiv:2601. 19921v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost.
By Xiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Yizhou Chi, Tom Stafford, Nigel Collier, Andreas Vlachos
arXiv:2512. 07195v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent role-playing has recently shown promise for studying social behavior with language agents, but existing simulations are mostly monolingual without cross-lingual interaction, an essential property of real societies.
By Xuan Zhang, Wenxuan Zhang, Anxu Wang, See-Kiong Ng, Yang Deng
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
By Chen Qian