Opinion formation in online networks involves changes in both beliefs and social ties. Analytical models make it possible to study equilibrium and social cost, but usually represent communication as a fixed numerical update. LLM-driven agents offer a language-based alternative, yet their convergence and collective efficiency remain unclear. We develop the Hybrid Coevolutionary Opinion Game (H-COG), combining cost-minimizing Friedkin-Johnsen agents (Type-C) and Phi-4 language agents (Type-L) in a dynamically rewired K-nearest-neighbor network. We initialize 50 agents with opinions drawn from 5,199 Reddit comments on gun control and abortion. The comments are scored on a continuous [-1,+1] scale using a fine-tuned RoBERTa regressor, and a mixing parameter sets the proportion of each agent type. The experiments cover nine population compositions, three initial network topologies, and two topics. All 540 runs meet the convergence criterion within the simulation horizon. Under Type-L updating, the coevolving network reaches an attractor as reliably as it does under the analytical update rule, making an equilibrium-based efficiency comparison possible. The pooled Price of Anarchy is 5.558±0.309 for purely Type-L populations, compared with 1.139±0.005 for purely Type-C populations. A decomposition of social cost attributes most of this gap to language agents moving away from their intrinsic opinions, rather than to greater disagreement with their neighbors. The main findings are consistent across the three initial network topologies.
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
LLM agents in social simulation revise their opinions implicitly, in context: how open an agent is to persuasion can neither be specified nor verified, and collective outcomes inherit the model's training prior. We introduce Bayesian Chronicle Agents (BCA), a minimal belief layer separating what an agent believes from how it speaks. Each stance is a probability, updated by one Bayesian step per utterance heard. A single prior-strength parameter κ encodes stubbornness, modeled after its role in Friedkin--Johnsen (FJ) opinion dynamics. We then sweep this parameter to yield three canonical regimes of opinion dynamics on demand (consensus, persistent disagreement, committed-minority influence), with persistent disagreement matching the FJ closed-form fixed points at R2=0.93--0.99. We further show that prescribed κ remains recoverable after the language round-trip, with perfect rank-order recovery across all four models. Explicit belief also makes simulation auditable: the layer surfaces systematic per-model stance biases that end-to-end simulation would silently absorb.
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.
Germans Savcisens, Samantha Dies, Courtney Maynard +1