Belief Coevolution in a Social Network of Generalist and Specialist Large Language Models
Authors: Germans Savcisens, Samantha Dies, Courtney Maynard, Tina Eliassi-Rad
Organizations: Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, USA · Network Science Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, USA · Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, USA
Abstract
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.
Caleb Probine, Yigit Ege Bayiz, Filippos Fotiadis +3
Classical models of opinion dynamics assume human participants with bounded rationality and limited coordination. The rise of LLM-based agents introduces a qualitative shift: agents can now participate in online discussions at scale, maintain consistent persuasion strategies, and coordinate systematically. This paper argues that LLM agents make collective belief dynamics programmable, enabling deliberate steering of population-level beliefs. We term this emerging problem programmable collective belief control. Through controlled multi-agent simulations, we provide proof-of-concept evidence that coordinated AI agents can induce measurable belief shifts that stabilize within a few interaction rounds. We identify four structural properties (indistinguishability, persistence, contextuality, and configurability) that make detection and defense fundamentally difficult. Based on these findings, we outline a research agenda spanning theoretical foundations for adversarial belief dynamics, operational methods for system-level detection and intervention, and simulation infrastructure for scalable experimentation. Our goal is not to present a complete solution, but to articulate why this problem demands urgent attention and to provide a conceptual foundation for future work.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in interacting populations, raising the question of what such populations come to believe collectively. Whether a population aggregates genuine knowledge or collapses into a false consensus directly affects how much such systems can be trusted. Classical social-network models assume that the network itself determines how beliefs combine. This assumption breaks down for LLM agents, whose limited attention takes in only part of what they are exposed to, so these models overstate how much information a population actually pools and cannot tell genuine consensus from herding. We introduce SNLA, a framework that models how much each agent actually influences others, rather than merely how the network connects them. This influence depends on each agent's position in the network and on how sharply attention focuses. Theoretically, we show on a tractable proxy that narrow attention causes herding, where the effective sample size stays bounded regardless of population size, while wide attention recovers wisdom-of-crowds behavior only when the exposure graph is undirected and degree-regular. Empirically, a controlled testbed validates these predictions directly, and the herding-wisdom transition reproduces on operator-controlled variants of three multi-agent LLM benchmarks.