Social Networks of LLM Agents

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent environments. However, the processes by which beliefs form and propagate among interacting LLMs remain poorly understood. We introduce CoevolveSim, a framework for studying belief diffusion within networked LLM populations. CoevolveSim allows us to isolate and study three factors: domain specialization, social-role assignment, and social network structure. Within this framework, generalist and specialist LLM agents exchange and revise beliefs. In each round, an LLM agent observes a summary of its neighbors' beliefs before updating its own. We run 1,280 controlled simulations spanning four scenarios, two network structures, and 20 medical-indication statements. We find that persona-style role assignment and network structure reshape individual belief revision but have minimal effect on population-level consensus. In contrast, introducing (finetuned) specialist LLMs more than doubles the shift in consensus and gives rise to consistent asymmetries in exerted influence. We further show that simple persistence-based opinion-dynamics models reproduce collective outcomes in all-generalist LLM populations, whereas heterogeneous LLM populations require population-level belief composition to reproduce consensus and agent identity to predict individual belief transitions. Our results indicate that realistic simulation of belief diffusion in multi-agent LLM systems requires a diverse set of underlying LLMs, not persona prompting alone.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly interact with one another in multi-agent systems, from simulations of human discourse to influence operations and fully LLM-driven social platforms. These interactions give rise to new regimes of opinion propagation that are not yet well understood. We investigate whether classical opinion dynamics models, which have long been used to explain how interactions shape collective beliefs in human societies, can capture the behavior of LLM networks. We find that, while naive averaging-style models fail to track LLMs' opinion dynamics, simple modifications yield substantial gains in modeling fidelity. In particular, bias, an innate opinion toward which agents regress, emerges as a significant driver of LLM opinion dynamics, with its inclusion reducing cumulative estimated mean opinion error by up to 88%. We additionally find that these conclusions generalize across model families, discussion topics, and networks.

Large language models (LLMs) can simulate human-like reasoning and decision-making in individual agents. LLM-powered multi-agent systems (MAS) combine such agents to simulate population-scale social phenomena such as polarization, information cascades, and market panics. Such studies require attributing macro emergence to individual agents, but existing axiomatic methods scale combinatorially in $N$ and have been confined to $N \lesssim 10^3$, while the phenomena they explain occur at $N \geq 10^6$. We address this gap by adapting Aumann--Shapley path-integral attribution to LLM-powered MAS at million-agent scale; the resulting method satisfies all four axioms, runs three to five orders of magnitude faster than sampled Shapley on the same hardware, and extends feasible axiomatic attribution by over three orders of magnitude (a $1670\times$ jump). We use this method to test the scale gap empirically: across 14 days of public Bluesky data ($1{,}671{,}587$ active users, five topics), we compute the attribution at both full scale and the visibility-biased $N = 10^2$ convenience sample used by small-scale studies, and the two disagree structurally. At full scale the long tail and middle tier jointly carry the majority; the biased small panel shifts about twice that share onto the upper follower tiers ($48\%$ versus $24\%$). We then prove that the disagreement cannot in general be reduced by post-hoc rescaling: an Attribution Scaling Bias theorem shows that a reconciling global rescaling factor exists exactly when the macro indicator is linear over agents, and our nonlinear indicators give residuals of $0.10$--$0.98$. For such nonlinear indicators, full-scale attribution is therefore a requirement rather than a methodological choice.