arXiv:2606. 27443v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personality prompting shapes how large language models communicate, yet whether these behavioral shifts affect objective task outcomes remains under-explored.
arXiv:2607. 26120v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in mixed-motive environments, where agents operate under asymmetric information and strategic deception due to conflicting or hidden objectives.
arXiv:2609.38964v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) is often used to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning, but sequential debate is rarely a neutral aggregator of agents'...
The article introduces personality engineering, a method that uses AI agents to precisely model negotiator personas based on established personality frameworks. It argues that AI agents, free from human limitations, can rigorously test canonical negotiation theory, which posits that success depends on balancing empathy and assertiveness. The authors propose using the interpersonal circumplex—specifically its warmth and dominance dimensions—as a foundational coordinate system for both theory testing and AI agent design.
arXiv:2608. 08199v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with other LLMs and humans.
The paper examines whether fine‑tuning large language models (LLMs) with personality‑labelled data improves their ability to act as socially interactive agents. Two small open‑weight LLMs were fine‑tuned on a corpus of personality‑labelled social media posts and dialogues, and the resulting models were evaluated in various social interaction scenarios by independent LLM judges. The findings show that the fine‑tuned models do not outperform their baseline counterparts in role‑playing personalities, though they offer comparable text quality and increased linguistic diversity for the Qwen models; low inter‑rater agreement limits confidence in the results, suggesting future work should focus on training data quality and domain alignment.
arXiv:2504. 03991v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Understanding how humans collaborate and communicate in teams is essential for improving human-agent teaming and AI-assisted decision-making.
arXiv:2606. 30454v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as agents in simulations of social systems, yet it remains unclear when their behavior can be interpreted as a faithful proxy for human decision-making.
arXiv:2511. 04500v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences.
arXiv:2607. 01034v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs) are now ubiquitous, creating new opportunities for AI-mediated behavior change.
The study investigates how large language model (LLM) agents influence consensus formation in mixed human‑AI groups during a collaborative description game. Three regimes emerge: low agent proportions lead to human‑led consensus, intermediate proportions disrupt convergence, and high proportions produce strong, agent‑led consensus. The resulting consensus differs in semantic grounding and communicative form, with human‑led consensus being concrete and holistic, and agent‑led consensus being abstract and geometrically segmented.
arXiv:2609.12444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Simulated societies of large language model agents are used to study online polarization, and separately to study collective intelligence, but the tw...
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) replicate socio‑cognitive effects of power asymmetry observed in human communication. By assigning high or low status personas to LLMs in simulated multi‑turn dialogues across diverse professions, the study measures language coordination, pronoun usage, persuasion success, and compliance with unsafe requests. Results indicate that LLMs exhibit key power‑related socio‑cognitive behaviors, though with nuances and variability, linking these simulated interactions to both desirable and unsafe outcomes.