Emergent Discrimination and Polarization in Multi-Agent Systems

AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation. As agents exchange information and jointly make decisions, their interactions can improve collective reasoning but may also produce herding, polarization, or amplify shared biases. Understanding and predicting these collective dynamics is therefore important for designing effective and aligned multi-agent systems. Here, we study over 10,000 communities of language-model agents that repeatedly exchange messages and revise their opinions across objective mathematics questions and subjective political statements. Despite substantial diversity in possible behavior, the individual and group dynamics can be represented by three characteristic regimes: indifference, polarization, and consensus. AI agents start indifferent and build conviction as they interact. On objective questions, communication improves collective accuracy, while on subjective questions it often drifts group opinions toward the right in the political spectrum. We explain these observations with a statistical-mechanics formalism in which agents stochastically favor lower social pressure. Given only initial opinions, our model predicts individual trajectories, outperforms all standard baselines, generalizes to unseen community graphs, and reproduces the observed group archetype distributions. Our fitted model parameters reveal the mechanics underlying our key observations: i) communities operate below the critical social temperature, which explains conviction buildup; ii) attractive ties outweigh repulsive ones, which favors consensus; and iii) agents holding the correct answer exert the strongest pull, which drives truth-seeking. Overall, our results demonstrate that collective behavior of AI agents, like that of other complex systems, follows compact and predictive dynamical laws.

We investigate the emergent collective dynamics of LLM-based multi-agent systems on a 2D square lattice and present a model-agnostic statistical-physics method to disentangle social conformity from intrinsic bias, compute critical exponents, and probe the collective behavior and possible phase transitions of multi-agent systems. In our framework, each node of an $L\!\times\!L$ lattice hosts an identical LLM agent holding a binary state ($+1$/$-1$, mapped to yes/no) and updating it by querying the model conditioned on the four nearest-neighbor states. The sampler temperature $T$ serves as the sole control parameter. Across three open-weight models (llama3.1:8b, phi4-mini:3.8b, mistral:7b), we measure magnetization and susceptibility under a global-flip protocol designed to probe $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry. All models display temperature-driven order-disorder crossovers and susceptibility peaks; finite-size scaling on even-$L$ lattices yields effective exponents $γ/ν$ whose values are model-dependent, close to but incompatible with the 2D Ising universality class ($γ/ν=7/4$). Our method enables the extraction of effective $β$-weighted couplings $\tilde{J}(T)$ and fields $\tilde{h}(T)$, which serve as a measure of social conformity and intrinsic bias. In the models we analyzed, we found that collective alignment is dominated by an intrinsic bias ($\tilde{h}\gg\tilde{J}$) rather than by cooperative neighbor coupling, producing field-driven crossovers instead of genuine phase transitions. These effective parameters vary qualitatively across models, providing compact collective-behavior fingerprints for LLM agents and a quantitative diagnostic for the reliability of multi-agent consensus and collective alignment.

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.