Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the behavior of LLM agents in simulated multi-round debates within social networks exhibiting varying degrees of homophily and class imbalance. The study reveals a phenomenon termed "agreement drift," where agents exhibit a directional bias towards specific positions on an opinion scale, irrespective of network structure. The results caution against directly interpreting LLM population dynamics as representative of human social behavior without carefully accounting for inherent model biases.
LLM-powered social simulations can mislead: agents exhibit "agreement drift," shifting opinions toward specific viewpoints regardless of network influence.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated an unprecedented ability to simulate human-like social behaviors, making them useful tools for simulating complex social systems. However, it remains unclear to what extent these simulations can be trusted to accurately capture key social mechanisms, particularly in highly unbalanced contexts involving minority groups. This paper uses a network generation model with controlled homophily and class sizes to examine how LLM agents behave collectively in multi-round debates. Moreover, our findings highlight a particular directional susceptibility that we term \textit{agreement drift}, in which agents are more likely to shift toward specific positions on the opinion scale. Overall, our findings highlight the need to disentangle structural effects from model biases before treating LLM populations as behavioral proxies for human groups.