The study introduces PV‑SST, a peer‑voted social‑platform testbed, and conducts a preregistered matched‑exposure experiment across four topics, four seeds, four model families, and three larger variants, totaling 448 trials. Results show that feeding agents a ranked list of prior peer posts increases lexical similarity in both the core panel and larger variants, but does not produce a reliable advantage in opinion alignment or survival rates. The only robust finding is lexical convergence driven by the peer‑ranked feed, with no consistent coordination benefit across models or topics.
arXiv:2602.02589v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM) evaluation commonly relies on fixed human-authored benchmarks or centralized human/model judges. Fixed benchmarks can ag...
arXiv:2606. 18264v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Faithful modeling of hateful content propagation on online platforms remains an open problem for moderation research.
arXiv:2608. 07498v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous AI agents in social media present concrete risks to democratic discourse and platform governance, while also offering tools for pre-deployment recommender system testing.
The study examines how four large language models (Gemma-3-4b-it, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and GPT-5-nano) exhibit repetition effects in a social media simulation. Using a two‑phase within‑context design, researchers collected 336,000 ratings on truth, importance, sentiment, and interest for 100 statements across 10 feed variants and 3 replications. Results show distinct patterns: Gemma-3 displays a genuine Illusory Truth Effect, Qwen2.5 shows a mere exposure effect, GPT-5-nano shows no truth boost and mild skepticism, and Llama-3.1 shows a small truth boost with reduced evaluative dimensions.
arXiv:2606. 02646v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Inference-time multi-agent LLM scaling lacks a shared unit: counting nominal agents conflates cost with independent evidence.
arXiv:2608. 11247v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in language models have enabled collaborative settings in which multiple models leverage one another's capabilities, iteratively improving, transforming, and extending each other's outputs.
arXiv:2609.22090v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An LLM producing the response pattern associated with a human psychological effect is not the same claim as the LLM possessing that bias. We present Ps...
arXiv:2607. 23647v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can summarize heterogeneous user evidence in natural language, but current LLM recommenders often collapse enduring preferences, transient intent, and exposure-induced behavior into one profile.
arXiv:2607. 10202v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cross-model comparisons read divergence in value dispositions as evidence that language models hold individuated values.
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...
arXiv:2605. 22714v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation.
arXiv:2608. 15877v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search and recommendation serve a shared discovery objective but encode intent differently.