arXiv:2607. 03695v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in interacting populations, raising the question of what such populations come to believe collectively.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
The paper introduces a controlled testbed to study how goal‑directed persuaders shift stances in networks of large language model agents, using real‑world ego‑network topologies. Experiments across four LLM backbones, five graph structures, and 55 policy statements show that persuasion dynamics depend on topology, competition, topic, and model prior. The study finds that direct exposure predicts stance change, peer relays have measurable influence, and that post‑text analysis alone misses important movement, highlighting the need to evaluate multi‑agent persuasion through trajectory‑level processes, belief probes, exposure provenance, and action logs.
The paper investigates how a minority of biased agents in a multi‑agent system of large language models (LLMs) can amplify bias through textual interactions. Even a small percentage of persistently extreme agents causes significant opinion shifts among the non‑biased agents, with the effect occurring faster in the Llama 3.2 model than in a classical Friedkin‑Johnsen model. Semantic analysis shows that rhetorical consistency rises with biased exposure and that non‑biased agents adopt the biased vocabulary even when their numerical opinions change only modestly.
arXiv:2604.11312v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as interacting agents in settings such as online platforms, recommendation systems, and multi...
arXiv:2606. 19494v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent LLM deliberation, where agents exchange and revise answers over several rounds, is increasingly used to improve reasoning and accuracy, yet how and why it works is rarely modelled.
arXiv:2510. 20963v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) was proposed as a promising approach for ensembling the wisdom of multiple large language models (LLMs) to improve reasoning and provide effective supervision to superhuman LLMs.
The paper investigates whether compact surrogate models can reduce the cost of simulating large language model (LLM) societies while still reproducing their collective behavior. Using 9,455 published trajectories and new opinion‑dynamics experiments, it finds that incorporating neighbor information improves individual predictions across all 16 public‑data settings and enhances pooled collective forecasts on held‑out questions, though the collective gains vary with transfer conditions. Additional tests on 24 new statements do not confirm earlier contrasting history effects, and Qwen shows benefit from history only after three observed rounds, underscoring the need for direct collective validation, explicit limits on available observations, and comparisons with simple baselines.