Measuring Model-Specific Alignment Drift in LLM-Based Opinion Dynamics

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. Specifically, we quantify the relative contributions of classical opinion-dynamics mechanisms, including neighbor influence, stubbornness, homophily, and bias, to the evolution of LLM opinions. Among the mechanisms considered, a bias term capturing regression toward a model- and topic-dependent opinion emerges as a significant explanatory component, with its inclusion reducing cumulative estimated mean opinion error by up to $88\%$. We additionally observe similar trends across the evaluated model families, discussion topics, and network structures.

Large language models increasingly take part in extended conversations where they can both shape and be shaped by another party's views, yet most persuasion research measures only one side of that exchange. We introduce a controlled LLM-LLM debate framework in which two language-model roles repeatedly discuss a contested topic (climate-change attribution): one is given an assigned stance and, in some conditions, an explicit instruction to persuade, while the other receives no assigned position. Across four ordered model combinations involving GPT-6 Luna and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, we track both each role's explicitly reported position and a separate measure of its turn-by-turn behavior inside the conversation. Opinion dynamics differ substantially across model combinations: same-model interactions narrow the opinion gap on average, clearly for only one of the two models, while cross-model interactions widen it. Explicit reports and in-dialogue behavior capture distinct aspects of opinion dynamics, and a blanket instruction to persuade does not reliably increase influence. These findings suggest that conversational influence depends not only on assigned roles and initial positions but also on the participating models, with implications for how opinion change is measured in extended LLM interactions.

Modeling opinion change through social interactions is important for understanding polarization, misinformation, and societal conflict. Recent work simulates opinion dynamics with role-playing LLM agents (RPLAs), but multi-agent simulations often display unnatural group behavior (e.g., premature convergence) and lack empirical benchmarks for assessing alignment with real human group interactions. We introduce DEBATE, a benchmark for evaluating the authenticity of opinion dynamics in multi-agent RPLA simulations. DEBATE contains multi-round public messages and private Likert-scale beliefs from U.S.-based participants across 107 topics; the cleaned benchmark used in our experiments contains 2,788 participants in 697 groups, enabling evaluation at the utterance and group levels. We instantiate digital-twin RPLAs with seven LLMs and evaluate across two settings: next-message prediction and full dynamics simulation, using stance-based opinion-dynamics metrics. In zero-shot settings, RPLA groups exhibit strong opinion convergence relative to human groups. Across group-generalization tests with unseen participant groups and topic-generalization tests with unseen discussion topics, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) for Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct improves stance prediction of individuals and convergence prediction at the group level, though discrepancies in opinion change and belief updating remain. The dataset and benchmark website are publicly available.