Disentangling Models from Personas in Heterogeneous LLM Simulations

Applications based on large language models (LLMs), such as multi-agent simulations, require population diversity among agents. We identify a pervasive failure mode we term \emph{Persona Collapse}: agents each assigned a distinct profile nonetheless converge into a narrow behavioral mode, producing a homogeneous simulated population. To quantify persona collapse, we propose a framework that measures how much of the persona space a population occupies (Coverage), how evenly agents spread across it (Uniformity), and how rich the resulting behavioral patterns are (Complexity). Evaluating ten LLMs on personality simulation (BFI-44), moral reasoning, and self-introduction, we observe persona collapse along two axes: (1) Dimensions: a model can appear diverse on one axis yet structurally degenerate on another, and (2) Domains: the same model may collapse the most in personality yet be the most diverse in moral reasoning. Furthermore, item-level diagnostics reveal that behavioral variation tracks coarse demographic stereotypes rather than the fine-grained individual differences specified in each persona. Counter-intuitively, \textbf{the models achieving the highest per-persona fidelity consistently produce the most stereotyped populations}. We release our toolkit and data to support population-level evaluation of LLMs.

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.

Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly mix models from several providers, yet exposing each agent's underlying model identity to its peers significantly impairs cooperation. We show that when agents are aware of each other's model family, the group splits into clusters, where agents prefer interacting with others carrying their same label, although nothing in the task rewards or asks for such a split. We argue that the label itself causes this split, which we define as $\textit{factionalism}$. We show and measure this phenomenon in two cooperative games and on a reasoning benchmark, with nine to twenty-five agents drawn from up to five open-weight model families. We further show that when the announced families are shuffled, or replaced by arbitrary labels, the factions still follow this information; when the label is removed, this behavior disappears. In strictly cooperative tasks, labeled groups spend on average $30\%$ more rounds and $55\%$ more tokens to reach a decision, and their success rate drops from $96\%$ to $81\%$. The effect replicates across tasks, group sizes and model families. Withholding identity labels from the agents is simple and effective mitigation.