Diverse Minds, Divided Networks? Personality Composition, Polarization, and Collective Intelligence in LLM-Based Social Simulations

LLM "agent societies" are studied via demonstrations of emergent consensus or polarization -- with no measurable control parameter, no theory of when each regime appears, and no test of whether an outcome is a genuine social dynamic or a model artifact. We introduce the coupling gain gamma, measured per-agent by counterfactually perturbing a neighbour's stated opinion. (i) gamma is stable and model-distinguishing -- across five frontier models it spans 0.15-0.43 (n=20, 95% CIs <= 0.025), paraphrase-invariant; social-neighbour gamma roughly equals numeric-anchor gamma, so gamma is evidence-coupling, not uniquely social. (ii) Classical dynamics with measured (not assumed) coefficients organise the regime: Friedkin-Johnsen for consensus/pluralism, signed-Laplacian/structural-balance for polarization. (iii) Frontier LLMs do not spontaneously backfire (beta <= 0), so default societies do not self-polarize -- polarization is always induced; the beta>0 branch arises only in the FJ surrogate, never in the agents. (iv) A randomized-initial-condition diagnostic -- the (slope, bias) of final vs. initial opinion -- separates genuine averaging from model-prior artifacts (boundary-censoring ruled out by construction via interior-valued facts); applied to a published "emergent consensus" result (Chuang et al. 2023) it reveals a model-specific conflation: averaging on debatable claims, prior-artifact on settled facts. (v) Coupling is context-dependent: pairwise gamma does not predict multi-neighbour outcomes -- it can order them backwards -- whereas a modality-matched group coupling does (sixteen closed+open models, Pearson r=-0.70, permutation p=0.008). The regime laws take this matched coupling, not the single-neighbour gamma: emergent consensus must be read from coupling in the target interaction. We contribute a measurement protocol and a validity instrument, not new theory.

Personality prompting shapes how large language models communicate, yet whether these behavioral shifts affect objective task outcomes remains under-explored. Prior work shows that agents prompted with low agreeableness produce adversarial language, while those prompted with high agreeableness become cooperative, but the relationship between communication style and task performance has not been systematically examined across multiple domains. In this work, we investigate whether personality composition matters for multi-agent team performance by manipulating personality traits across frontier LLMs on three task domains: structured coding, open-ended research collaboration, and competitive bargaining. We find that personality effects depend critically on task structure. In coding tasks, low agreeableness leads to large communication shifts that have little effect on milestone completion. In open-ended collaboration and bargaining, the same manipulation substantially degrades performance. We discuss implications for multi-agent system design and the limits of personality manipulation.

Studies attempting to simulate human behavior with $\textit{Silicon Societies}$ grow in numbers while LLM-only social networks have started appearing outside of controlled settings. However, the design space of these networks remains under-studied, which contributes to a gap in validating model realism. To enable future works to make more informed design decisions, we perform a systematic analysis of the consequences and interactions of key design choices in simulated social networks, including the choice of base model used to model individual agents, and how they are connected to each other. Using surveys as a proxy for agent opinions, our findings suggest that the geometry of the design space is non-trivial, with some parameters behaving in additive ways while others display more complex interactions. In particular, the choice of the base LLM is the most important variable impacting the simulation outcomes.