Opinion Dynamics

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 $5.558 \pm 0.309$ for purely Type-L populations, compared with $1.139 \pm 0.005$ 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.

Because significant action to counter global warming requires massive public support, it is important to understand the dynamics of public opinion on climate issues. Of special interest are social tipping points, as revealed by large-scale effects of small perturbations in individual behaviors. Agent-based models (ABM) are an effective computational tool for studying these matters, because they allow controlled and systematic exploration of the effects of interventions that may be infeasible in real-world social systems. Large language models (LLMs) have been used to endow model agents with the ability to communicate in natural language (rather than by exchanging predefined messages), as well as with personality (in the form of a narrative self and episodic memory). We leverage LLM-powered ABM to look for tipping points in the social dynamics of a micro-society in which some of the discussions are about climate change. Our agents' stance was defined by two variables: the strength of conviction about the urgency of climate action and the degree of trust in existing institutions. We quantified shifts in agents' "beliefs" by monitoring, across multiple rounds of conversations, (1) inter-agent distances in this two-dimensional stance space and (2) the patterns of discussion topics as modeled by Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). Our findings to date suggest that significant abrupt changes in climate-change stance do occur in this simple model. We report a number of methodological lessons from this study, notably, the need to prevent LLM biases from interfering with the conversational dynamics and, more generally, to maintain agent personality and episodic memories of interactions in the face of such biases. Resolving these issues may allow for using ABM-derived insights in designing real-life interventions vis-a-vis climate change and other important societal challenges.

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 $R^2\!=\!0.93$--$0.99$. 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.

The study of opinion dynamics in social networks is one of the key challenges in computational social science with direct relevance to understanding political polarization, misinformation, and health responses. Current approaches focus on simplified mathematical models that ignore linguistic and contextual factors related to belief updates or use Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulations that have not been validated against real data. We present a framework based on the concept of a digital twin to simulate opinion dynamics in social networks. The approach fills the gap by cloning a real-world Twitter network, assigns a set of attributes for agents (such as persona, emotions, centrality, stubbornness, and influence), and employs Mistral-7B to perform opinion update based on memory and social exposure. To evaluate the proposed approach, we validate it against two real Twitter datasets (COVID-19 discourse and U.S elections 2020). The results show that the capability of the proposed framework reproduces opinion trajectories and reduces individual prediction error by more than 50% compared to the best-performing classical baseline (Mistral-7B achieves Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = 0.150 and 0.121 on the COVID-19 and US Election 2020 datasets, respectively). We observe similar improvements in structural alignment (Delta_r = 0.120 and 0.180) and polarization dynamics (Delta_Var = 0.106 and 0.115) on the two datasets, respectively. Additionally, the ablation studies confirm that agent attributes, memory, and social exposure all contribute to the framework's predictive fidelity in reproducing opinion trajectories, with agent attributes being the most critical contributor. Overall, our results demonstrate that grounding Mistral-7B within empirically cloned interaction networks produces a realistic simulation framework capable of reproducing complex social dynamics.

Federated learning (FL) enables privacy-preserving, on-device training across heterogeneous Internet-of-Things (IoT) deployments such as smart-city water-metering networks, where each smart meter observes a household-specific consumption time series. Under such statistical heterogeneity, the standard Federated Averaging (FedAvg) aggregation averages dissimilar local models into a single global model that may fail to capture client-specific patterns. We address this by forming client coalitions directly in the local-weight space and aggregating at the coalition level. Extending a prior weight-driven coalition-formation scheme, we model coalition formation as a Hegselmann-Krause (HK) bounded-confidence opinion-dynamics process acting on the local weights, and develop variants of the HK interaction based on Euclidean-distance and cosine-similarity confidence criteria. The framework is applied to short-term water-consumption forecasting with local Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models and evaluated against FedAvg, Per-FedAvg, FedProx, and FedAvg with Euclidean-distance or cosine-similarity coalition formation. Experiments on a real smart-metering dataset of water consumption show that the proposed HK-based coalition formation produces stable, endogenous coalition structures within at most ten inner iterations, incurs no additional client-side computation or communication compared to FedAvg, and reduces the average MAE by up to 54% relative to FedAvg, 39% relative to FedProx, and 24% relative to Per-FedAvg, while achieving the highest global accuracy (83-85%).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications involving interaction between agents, where their output plays a role in collective reasoning and decision-making processes. Despite significant research into the functioning of LLMs in such multi-agent systems, the processes of bias propagation in such systems are still a challenge. This work studies how biased opinions are propagated in the form of textual interaction in an environment of LLMs, in which a minority of agents maintain persistent extreme opinions, while the remaining agents iteratively update their beliefs through structured textual interactions. The findings show that even the presence of a small percentage of biased agents in such a system leads to significant shifts in the opinions of non-biased agents. It suggests that for the same percentage of biased agents, the shifts occur more quickly for the Llama~3.2 model when compared to a classical Friedkin-Johnsen (FJ) model. Further semantic analysis demonstrates that rhetorical consistency in textual explanations increases systematically with biased exposure and, importantly, is partially decoupled from numerical convergenumericalutral agents adopt the vocabulary employed by the biased agents even in configurations where their numerical opinion shifts remain moderate. The research helps explain how bias and language develop together in multi-agent language model ecosystems.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly emerging as a new paradigm for modeling social networks by representing users and their relationships and interactions through natural language. Unlike classical network models or deep learning approaches, LLMs can simulate context-aware social behavior and language-driven interactions, enabling more realistic modeling of network formation and dynamic social processes. However, existing studies are scattered across different research communities and lack a unified perspective. This survey presents the first comprehensive review of LLMs for social network modeling by organizing the literature into two broad categories: network generative models and dynamic process models. Network generative models are further classified into selection-based and interaction-based approaches, while dynamic process models are categorized into opinion dynamics, information diffusion, and rumor propagation, each with their underlying modeling mechanisms. LLMs enable rich textual social interactions and decision-making, but they also exhibit many limitations, including inherent social biases and prompt sensitivity. We outline these open research challenges and discuss future directions in LLM-based social network modeling.

Multi-agent LLM deliberation has been explored as a scalable way to simulate public deliberation. For such simulations to be informative, persona agents should reflect population opinion patterns and interaction should shape their conclusions. We evaluate whether LLM-based deliberation can meet these two conditions using census-grounded Korean personas debating real policy questions benchmarked against national surveys. Persona agents do not reliably reproduce population opinion patterns: responses are often far more concentrated and frequently reverse demographic differences in the human data. Deliberations nonetheless produce reasoned, reciprocal, and varied arguments alongside substantial stance movement. Yet much of this movement does not require peer exchange: sealed-monologue agents change position at similar rates and reach nearly the same final balance as full debates, while groups initialized with very different positions often converge to similar endpoints. Anchoring population-informed starting positions, meanwhile, sharply suppresses updating. Thus, population representation, argument generation, and interaction-driven opinion change do not necessarily go together. The simulations readily surface arguments on both sides, though whether they capture the diversity of human perspectives remains untested, leaving open a promising role for argument surfacing even as population simulation requires further validation.

In a multi-agent system, there are often stubborn followers of specific opinions or beliefs. Motivated by this observation, in this paper, we aim to understand how stubborn agents affect the distribution of opinions in a network where both stubborn and non-stubborn agents interact with each other. To do so, we assume that all agents have an opinion in the set $\{0,1\}$ and each non-stubborn agent updates its opinion according to the $2k$\textit{-choices rule}, where the agent samples $2k$ neighbours (including both stubborn and non-stubborn neighbours) uniformly at random and adopts the majority opinion among the sampled group of neighbours and itself. We assume that a proportion of agents, $γ_i$, are stubborn followers of opinion $i\in \{0,1\}$. It is natural to expect that the steady-state distribution of the opinions in the network will be dominated by the opinion with the larger proportion of stubborn followers. We show that while this is true, the time to reach steady-state depends heavily on the values of the parameters $γ_0$ and $γ_1$. When the individual values of these parameters, as well as their difference, are small, it can take an exponentially long time (in the network size) to reach the steady-state. In sharp contrast, when at least one of the parameters $γ_0$ and $γ_1$ is large, the network reaches the steady-state in a time that is only logarithmic in the network size. Hence, there exists a sharp phase transition in the network dynamics based on the proportions of stubborn agents. We also characterise the behaviour of the system when the parameters $γ_0$ and $γ_1$ lie on the boundary of the phase transition. In this boundary region, we show using Stein's method that the dynamics are driven by a diffusion process which takes polynomial time to mix.

Popularity bias in recommendation systems arises when a majority user class generates disproportionate interaction data, causing the system to increasingly favour it while degrading recommendation quality for niche users. While extensive empirical evidence of popularity bias exists, the dynamics leading to its emergence are not well understood. In this work, we study the coupled evolution of recommender model updates and user engagement through the lens of dynamical systems. We formulate a stochastic process and analyse its asymptotic behaviour through an ordinary differential equation (ODE) framework grounded in two-time-scale stochastic approximation. We characterise the equilibrium points of this dynamical system, and derive conditions under which popularity bias is provably emergent, as well as conditions under which symmetric retention of all user classes is possible. We conduct experiments on synthetic data and real-world production logs derived from a large-scale commercial music recommendation platform to validate our theoretical results.

Large language models (LLMs), and the agents built on top of them, are now benchmarked heavily on whether they can finish a task -- fix a bug, drive a browser, operate a GUI. A complementary social ability, namely how well a model understands and forecasts the way real social events unfold, has barely been measured. We introduce SocietyBench, an end-to-end benchmark that takes a one-line event topic, collects Web news and social-media posts across five platforms, distills them into a date-indexed timeline that keeps factual events and a public-opinion layer separate, and then turns every cutoff date on that timeline into an audited bank of forecasting questions. Questions are scored on two orthogonal 100-point axes: probability calibration and temporal accuracy. Before any model sees a timeline, a three-phase procedure replaces every named entity and shifts every date by a per-event constant, turning a real arc into a counterfactual social world -- structurally identical to what happened, but stripped of the surface labels a model could match against pre-training memory. On five heterogeneous events and 125 prediction points in Chinese and English editions, the strongest of six frontier LLMs reaches only 75.0 out of 100, against a trivial anchor of 50. The two axes come apart: a model can be calibration-strong but time-weak, or the reverse. Three agent frameworks built on a shared base model fail to improve on that base, and two model-free heuristics trail every LLM. Per-event gaps reach 21.4 points on a single axis, which is our main argument for evaluating on several events rather than one. All anonymized timelines, question banks, ground truth, and scoring code are released.

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.

Persona simulation involves utilizing large language models (LLMs) to anticipate human choices or interactions based on specific characteristic information. To further understand current limitations and future directions, we tested persona simulation in opinion prediction with GPT-4.1 (knowledge cutoff by June 2024). Using personas from nine U.S. states provided by Columbia University's Personas dataset, GPT-4.1 accurately predicted 2024 election outcomes in eight out of the nine states, only failing in one of the swing states. We then focused on opinions related to medicine and healthcare. With the American Trends Panel Wave 123 dataset from Pew Research Center, GPT-4.1 was able to anticipate beliefs about childhood vaccines with an accuracy of up to 0.94. Furthermore, we applied GPT-4.1 to generate conversations among personas and observed that the simulated dialogues and opinions adhered well to personas' personalities and backgrounds, albeit lacking natural human-like flow. Persona simulation proves to be a promising application of artificial intelligence as long as biases are addressed. In the near future, it will be beneficial to apply it to opinion analysis and reaction prediction in diverse fields ranging from public health to lawmaking to economics.

We study a society of agents belonging to a number of occupational or cultural groups that form opinions about others' situation in the same or different group. Opinions develop either by observation within own group or by directly interacting with members of other groups, therefore by word of mouth (WoM). Additionally, global mass media (MM) may be available that inform indirectly about the situation of the various groups. The sociocultural interplay of these processes and the degrees of relative exposure to each of the sources has diversified effects on final opinion and social attitude formation. In large and complex societies and groups where not everyone can physically interact by WoM with everyone about everything, these processes show potential for mass control and social automation engineering. Our model can also represent and be generally informative about segmented societies that consist of groups with different occupational and cultural characteristics and it can offer insights into social issues such as the generation gap, social cleavages and so on.

Previous work in group recommender systems has demonstrated a sensitivity to the distribution of preferences within a group. Specifically, the selection of the preference aggregation strategy benefits from considering such group configurations. In this paper, we study whether LLMs are able to mimic this sensitivity and to select the ideal aggregation strategy (and corresponding recommendation) according to nuanced human perceptions of fairness, satisfaction, and consensus. We do this by fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on human survey data to serve as real-time judgmental models within the recommendation pipeline. Using a reasoning dataset distilled from DeepSeek-V3.1 and human ground truth assessments, we develop Judgmental Llama and Judgmental OLMo to simulate group assessments. Our pipeline successfully generates multiple recommendation candidates based on social choice-based aggregation strategies and dynamically selects the one that maximizes these predicted human-like evaluations. We further validate these suggestions in a user study (n=284) and find that our methodology achieved the highest scores for satisfaction and group consensus. Furthermore, we find that LLM judgments are most aligned with human perceptions of fairness, satisfaction and consensus when we also consider interaction effects between our LLM-based method and group configuration (e.g., minority or coalition). These findings give further support for dynamically adapting aggregation strategies to specific within-group preference distributions, and highlight the advantage of using LLMs for an adaptation that is aligned with subjective human judgments.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

In this age of social media, sites like Twitter have become meeting places for people to share their views and feelings on a wide range of issues and current events as they unfold in real time. Sentiment analysis, a critical application of NLP, has become indispensable due to the massive influx of user-generated content, enabling the extraction of meaningful insights from the opinions and emotions expressed in textual data. Sentiment analysis on Twitter employs sophisticated computational techniques to categorize tweets into positive, negative, or neutral sentiments. This method not only examines individual expressions but also analyzes vast databases related to specific subjects or events. By spotting these emotions, machine learning models help improve public opinion interpretation and trend forecasting. This paper examines the effectiveness of various machine learning and deep learning approaches. Designed for this use, the system evaluates logistic regression, random forest, naïve bayes, gradient boosting, and LSTM networks, among other algorithms applied in sentiment classification. This work identifies the optimal sentiment analysis model using a Kaggle Twitter dataset that has been preprocessed through tokenization, lemmatization, and stopword elimination. Emphasizing the better performance of the LSTM approach, the model attained a training accuracy of 90.98%, a testing accuracy of 80.00%, and a micro-average ROC- AUC score of 0.92. These results show that the model outperforms conventional machine learning techniques in capturing contextual and sequential textual aspects.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been utilized in various applications of computational social science and provide the possibility to integrate such models into agent-based modeling to explore the cognitive processes. However, how specific cognitive modules drive individual decisions and macro-level opinion dynamics remains unclear. Therefore, this study introduces a framework that integrates an LLM (Qwen3-8B) into agent-based modeling to investigate this problem, using vaccination opinion dynamics as a case study. We utilize this framework to simulate opinion dynamics among agents with heterogeneous profiles and social networks, evaluating scenarios by enabling different cognitive modules: a memory module and a prompt diversity module. The simulation results reveal that different cognitive modules have opposite impacts on our emergent opinion. Furthermore, the framework reproduces the non-linear behavior patterns of social influence observed in existing research, demonstrating our framework's validity and potential to reach the level 3 validation of agent-based models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect. While sycophancy is often treated as a single defined behavior, it can manifest in substantially distinct ways and circumstances, raising the question of whether this multi-faceted nature is reflected in its internal mechanisms. To address this gap, we dissociate the representations of sycophancy into factual and opinion subtypes -- motivated by the distinction between verifiable claims and subjective beliefs. We train linear probes and construct steering vectors on activations of one subtype and evaluate their transfer to the other subtype to measure to what extent they share representations. We find evidence that different LLMs represent these subtypes differently, with either more unified or more distinct and causally interfering representations. This method of dissociation offers a promising framework for studying the representational structure of complex model behaviors.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is an emerging low-altitude transportation system whose successful deployment depends on both technological progress and public acceptance. Public acceptance can influence government support, regulations, noise standards, willingness to fly, and the commercial viability of AAM. Understanding public sentiment is therefore essential for identifying societal barriers and developing effective adoption strategies. This study analyzes 306,009 human-generated texts collected from Reddit and Quora to examine AAM-related public discourse using artificial intelligence models. Seven sentiment-analysis approaches, including lexicon-based, machine-learning, deep-learning, and transformer models, are evaluated to identify the most reliable method for AAM-specific sentiment classification. ModernBERT achieves the highest performance and is used to label the full dataset. Latent Dirichlet Allocation is then applied within each sentiment class to identify underlying topics and examine their temporal evolution from 2008 to 2025. The analysis identifies 20 topics and six major cross-sentiment clusters: workforce and skill development, regulation and compliance, drone technical performance, military and geopolitical applications, safety and operational risks, and noise and disturbance. These findings can help policymakers, industry stakeholders, researchers, and operators develop targeted regulations, safety measures, workforce programs, noise-reduction strategies, and public communication efforts to address concerns and support the responsible deployment of AAM.

Multi-agent LLM deliberation, where agents exchange and revise answers over several rounds, is increasingly used to improve reasoning and accuracy, yet how and why it works is rarely modelled. Such deliberation mirrors how humans reach decisions. As social animals we are pulled both by the group, the herd effect that classical opinion-dynamics models such as DeGroot and Friedkin--Johnsen capture, and by our own internal belief, which they do not. We model multi-agent deliberation as a closed-loop dynamical system in which each agent carries a hidden internal belief, its anchor, that continually pulls its opinion regardless of its neighbours. We show this anchor can be recovered from the deliberation alone, and that it explains a behaviour classical consensus rules forbid: an agent's confidence in the correct answer can climb past where any agent started, escaping the space (convexhull) formed by the initial beliefs. Checking whether the recovered anchor also predicts held-out runs (generalizes) gives a simple test for when a model is truly driven bysuch an anchor. Across three open-weight model families this is a spectrum, not all-or-nothing. All anchors' influence are about equally strongly, but they differ in where the anchor sits, and only when it sits far from the initial opinions does deliberation escape the hull and need the full closed-loop model.

Large language models have been widely evaluated as simulators of individual survey responses. In practice, however, fully unobserved responses are rare; the dominant problem is partial non-response. Imputation aims to restore the overall structure of a survey dataset by filling in these missing values. It has its own well-defined evaluation criteria and differs fundamentally from prediction. We propose to impute missing survey data through in-context learning (ICL). We systematically evaluate ICL design choices across different missingness mechanisms (MCAR, MAR, MNAR) on 150 opinion variables spanning 15 waves of the American Trends Panel. Compared to well-established statistical methods for data imputation like MICE PMM, our ICL approach consistently reduces absolute error across all missingness mechanisms, with the largest gains under non-random missingness (MNAR). Notably, the best-performing specification (gpt-oss-120b with 100 in-context examples) achieves near-nominal aggregate coverage (approaching the 95% level) with confidence intervals two to five times narrower than MICE PMM. We publish a Python package with an sklearn-like API to enable easy deployment of our method using local and proprietary LLMs.

Modelling opinion dynamics typically relies on hand-crafted local interaction rules to study emergent macroscopic phenomena such as consensus and polarisation. In contrast, multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) enables agents to learn such behaviours directly by optimising simple rewards. To explore the potential of MARL for opinion dynamics, we introduce a GPU-accelerated consensus and truth-finding game that scales to populations of up to 1000 agents, comparable to many real-world social sub-networks. To prevent unrealistic conventions, we extend other-play to general-sum social interactions. We next validate our model on a subset of the Bluesky network by recovering agent importance structures from graph topology alone via a learned attention layer, finding that highly conforming populations most closely match human data. In large social media networks such high levels of conformity significantly reduce collective accuracy and promote dishonest agents that lie to fit in. By contrast, small, dynamic hunter-gatherer networks are less affected; here, conformity can even improve collective agreement. This suggests a mismatch between evolved human conformity heuristics and modern social media environments as a potential contributor to misinformation.

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.

Understanding the dynamic evolution of opinions, such as U.S. public attitudes toward China, is essential for assessing geopolitical risks. However, existing LLM-based multiagent simulators predominantly rely on static rules and fixed datasets, limiting their ability to capture the dynamic, event-driven nature of macro-level opinion shifts in real-world settings. To address this limitation, we propose an Event-Steered Multi-Agent Simulator (ES-MAS), in which significant events and daily news continuously drive opinion evolution through dynamic interactions among agents. We first construct the China-U.S. Relation Evolution (CURE) dataset, covering 20 quarters from 2021 to 2025, including 258 major events and over 14,000 daily news articles, and providing a comprehensive temporal foundation for modeling opinion dynamics. Building upon the CURE dataset, we propose a Dual-Stream Data Integration Engine (DSDIE) that aligns simulations with historical timelines via macro-level events while enabling personalized information exposure based on individual agent profiles and contextual signals. Furthermore, we design a News-Driven Dynamic Interaction (NDDI) module, which adaptively groups agents with shared news interests into localized interaction contexts, facilitating bottom-up consensus formation while mitigating the risk of isolated information cocoons. Experimental results on the CURE dataset demonstrate that ES-MAS substantially outperforms existing simulators in reproducing real-world historical trends, offering a scalable and effective framework for modeling dynamic opinion evolution.

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate social media users and infer how individuals may respond to online discussions. However, it remains unclear whether these simulations reflect precise user-specific beliefs or whether they are highly sensitive to semantically independent changes in conversational contexts. In this work, we study counterfactual context revision as a framework for auditing LLM-based stance simulation. Given an original online conversation, we first infer a target user's stance toward a specific topic. We then apply controlled revision strategies to the conversational context and simulate the user's stance again under the revised context. We compare text-only revision strategies with a multimodal one that incorporates meme-based context and evaluate two main effectiveness metrics, i.e., average directional stance shift and stance transition rate. The results reveal effective and robust stance transitions in both text-only and multimodal strategies across different polarization-preference mechanisms. Our study contributes an evaluation framework for understanding the context sensitivity of LLM-based stance simulation (https://github.com/STARResearchLab/StanceShift). More broadly, it highlights both the promise and risk of using LLMs as proxies for social media users in social simulation.

The Schrödinger Bridge Problem connects an initial distribution to a terminal one along a minimum-energy stochastic process. Its mean-field extension, the Mean-Field Schrödinger Bridge, governs interacting populations whose dynamics and costs depend on the collective distribution. When these interactions are nonlocal, their direct evaluation scales quadratically with the population size, making large ensembles intractable within FBSDE-based solvers. We replace these terms with neural surrogates in state and time, trained on empirical interaction values along sampled trajectories and embedded in a four-stage alternating scheme that updates the forward and backward potentials and the surrogates in turn, while preserving forward--backward consistency and the prescribed endpoint marginals. We derive Grönwall-type stability bounds quantifying how surrogate errors propagate to the generated trajectories under a small-gain condition. On crowd-navigation and high-dimensional opinion-dynamics benchmarks, the surrogates reproduce the trajectories obtained with exact evaluation at reduced training cost. The advantage is most significant when the interaction is a nonlinear functional of the measure, such as the normalized bounded-confidence drift, for which random-batch subsampling is biased and unstable whereas the learned surrogate remains accurate.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into various domains, making knowledge editing techniques crucial yet potentially hazardous. Current editing methods primarily target atomic facts, overlooking the significant risks associated with manipulating factual opinions, e.g., documented stances of public figures on societal issues. Such manipulation could reshape public images, influence elections, and alter societal views. To systematically assess this threat, we introduce the Factual Opinion Editing with Evidence (FOE) benchmark, which encompasses 261 public figures, 19 issue categories, and 2,178 complete opinion records. Our evaluations demonstrate that current editing techniques struggle significantly with factual opinions, often achieving only superficial changes while failing to preserve consistency between the edited opinion and the supporting evidence generated by the model. To address this limitation, we further propose a simple yet effective Self-Generated Evidence-Aligned method that achieves opinion-evidence alignment without relying on explicit instructions. Together, our benchmark and method provide a foundation for understanding the emerging security implications of factual opinion editing in LLMs.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely deployed and increasingly influential, but their reliance on external corpora exposes new security risks from poisoned retrieval content. Existing RAG attacks are largely focusing on individual queries or narrow topic-local query sets, which limits their practical reach and offers limited camouflage in real-world settings. In this paper, we introduce discourse-level opinion manipulation, a new threat model in which coordinated influence across a semantic query network induces opinion shifts over a holistic, multi-topic query space. We formalize this threat in a black-box setting and propose DiscourseFlip, an agentic, graph-guided attack that dynamically allocates a limited poisoning budget to maximize discourse-level opinion deviation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiscourseFlip consistently induces targeted opinion shifts across the contextualized query network and significantly outperforms existing baselines in terms of coverage and effectiveness. User studies further confirm that DiscourseFlip is effective while remaining well camouflaged from user detection. Moreover, systematic analyses show that existing mitigation strategies are ineffective against discourse-level manipulation, underscoring the urgent need for more robust and adaptive defenses to address discourse-level vulnerabilities.

The effectiveness of multi-agent LLM deliberation depends not only on the agents' individual predictions, but also on how they communicate and collaborate. We study this mechanism through the lens of Friedkin-Johnsen (FJ) opinion dynamics, a tractable model for analyzing stubbornness, influence, and opinion change in multi-agent systems that captures empirically observed deliberation patterns. We show that the FJ parameters are input-dependent, turning multi-agent deliberation into a mixture of experts. This perspective implies that multi-agent systems can outperform single agents and static ensembles when routing reflects agent competence. Since competence is latent in practice, we analyze how influence is established through observable proxies: agents' self-assessed confidence, their perceived confidence, and initial alignment with other agents' views.

AI-enabled military systems are a fixture of modern military conflict. Applications vary from autonomous drones for surveillance and attack to AI-supported target selection. The importance of AI for modern conflict shows also in public disputes between governments and technology companies over the conditions for military access to frontier AI. Both military uses and government attempts at enabling and steering them happen before a backdrop of public opinion, yet we still know little about how people think about military AI. Drawing on a preregistered survey of 9,000 respondents in nine countries, including China, Germany, and the United States, we examine whether support for military AI is shaped primarily by general attitudes toward AI, principled opposition to lethal autonomy, or foreign-policy and geopolitical orientations. Across six military AI scenarios that vary in lethality and human control, respondents who view AI as beneficial are substantially more supportive of military AI. Hawkish respondents are also more supportive. By contrast, principled opposition to lethal autonomy is not broadly associated with the full index but is related to the application of fully autonomous lethal force. Contrary to our expectation, perceived AI risks are positively associated with support. Cross-national differences are moderate and broadly consistent with geopolitical context. Overall, public opinion toward military AI appears conditionally permissive. Publics are not categorically opposed to various military uses of AI. Instead, unease is concentrated around fully autonomous lethal force.

While social media platforms, such as Twitter, provide a medium for large-scale opinion sharing during news events, it is manually impossible for individuals or media agencies to process the vast volume of content to identify key viewpoints. In order to resolve this, several automatic summarization techniques have been proposed to condense large collections of tweets into concise and informative summaries. However, these algorithms do not explicitly consider demographic fairness. Several existing research works have developed automated summarization approaches that can provide a holistic overview of the key aspects and major opinions shared on social media platforms related to a news event. However, these approaches do not explicitly consider different forms of demographic representation, such as gender, which can lead to biased summary representation. In this paper, we propose EquiSumm, which considers the gender aspect of the shared opinion to generate a summary, and our experimental analysis on two major datasets indicates the performance effectiveness with respect to existing research works.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the online platforms where humans exchange opinions; large language models (LLMs) now polish users' posts on LinkedIn and provide context for content shared on X. While prior work has shown that AI can express biased opinions and shape individuals' opinions during human-AI interactions, less attention has been paid to its influence on collective opinion formation when mediating human-to-human communication. We address this gap via a combination of empirical and theoretical analyses. We show empirically that LLMs from multiple popular families introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics, for example, nudging texts in favor of gun control and against atheism. Building on this observation, we introduce a mathematical model of opinion dynamics in which an AI system sits between users on a social network, transforming the opinions they express and perceive. By analytically characterizing the equilibrium of this model and performing simulations on real social network data, we show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction. In light of these findings, we investigate whether such biases are controllable by online platforms. We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content, which we trace back to specific design choices. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of our findings in relation to ongoing legislative efforts in the European Union.

LLM-based agents are increasingly used to simulate deliberative interactions such as negotiation, conflict resolution, and multi-turn opinion exchange. Yet generated transcripts often do not reveal why an agent's stance changes: movement may reflect evidence uptake, anchoring, role drift, echoing, or changed prompt and retrieval context. We introduce the Belief Engine (BE), an auditable belief-update layer that treats "belief" as an evidential state over a proposition and exposes it as scalar stance. BE extracts arguments into structured memory and updates stance with a log-odds rule controlled by evidence uptake u and prior anchoring a. Across multiple base LLMs, parameter sweeps show that these controls reliably shape stance dynamics while preserving an evidence-level update trail. On DEBATE, a human deliberation dataset with pre/post opinions, BE best reconstructs participants whose final stance follows extracted evidence; stable and evidence-opposed cases instead point to anchoring or factors outside the extracted evidence stream. BE provides configurable infrastructure for studying evidence-grounded deliberation, where openness, commitment, convergence, and disagreement can be tied to explicit update assumptions rather than hidden prompt effects.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent simulation offers a powerful testbed for studying social opinion dynamics. Yet current approaches often adopt two contrasting methods: either relying on fixed update rules with limited cognitive grounding or delegating belief change largely to unconstrained LLM interaction. We introduce ScioMind, a cognitively grounded simulation framework that bridges these paradigms by combining structured opinion dynamics with LLM-based agent reasoning. ScioMind integrates three key components: 1) a memory-anchored belief update rule that modulates susceptibility to influence via personality-conditioned anchoring strength; 2) a hierarchical memory architecture that supports persistent, experience-driven belief formation; and 3) dynamic agent profiles derived from a corpus-grounded retrieval pipeline, enabling heterogeneous personalities, rationales, and evolving internal states. We evaluate ScioMind on multiple case studies in a real-world policy debate scenario. Across metrics including polarisation, diversity, extremization, and trajectory stability, the proposed components consistently yield improvements in behavioural realism. In particular, dynamic profiles increase opinion diversity, memory and reflection reduce unstable oscillation, and anchoring induces persistent belief trajectories that better align with patterns reported in political psychology. These results suggest that our cognitively grounded design provides a novel solution to LLM-based social simulation that improves both stable and behavioural realism

Inference-time alignment techniques offer a lightweight alternative or complement to costly reinforcement learning, while enabling continual adaptation as alignment objectives and reward targets evolve. Existing theoretical analyses justify these methods as approximations to sampling from distributions optimally tilted toward a given reward model. We extend these techniques by introducing reference-model temperature adjustment, which leads to further generalization of inference-time alignment to ensembles of generative reward models combined as a sharpened logarithmic opinion pool (SLOP). To mitigate reward hacking, we propose an algorithm for calibrating SLOP weight parameters and experimentally demonstrate that it improves robustness while preserving alignment performance.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic preferences for well-known entities, a phenomenon often attributed to popularity bias. However, the extent to which these preferences reflect real-world popularity versus statistical exposure during pretraining remains unclear, largely due to the inaccessibility of most training corpora. We provide the first direct, large-scale analysis of popularity bias grounded in fully observable pretraining data. Leveraging the open OLMo models and their complete pretraining corpus, Dolma, we compute precise entity-level exposure statistics across 7.4 trillion tokens. We analyze 2,000 entities spanning five types (Person, Location, Organization, Art, Product) and compare pretraining exposure against Wikipedia pageviews and two elicited LLM popularity signals: direct scalar estimation and pairwise comparison. Our results show that pretraining exposure strongly correlates with Wikipedia popularity, validating exposure as a meaningful proxy for real-world salience during the training period. More importantly, we find that LLM popularity judgments align more closely with exposure than with Wikipedia, especially when elicited via pairwise comparisons. This alignment is strongest for larger models and persists in the long tail, where Wikipedia popularity becomes unreliable. Overall, our findings demonstrate that popularity priors in LLMs are primarily shaped by pretraining statistics rather than external popularity signals, offering concrete evidence that data exposure plays a central role in driving popularity bias.

Behavioral curve modeling -- fitting parametric functions to engagement-versus-exposure data -- is standard practice in recommendation, advertising, and clinical dosing. We show that aggregation introduces a systematic distortion: Simpson's paradox in behavioral curves. On Goodreads (3.3M users, 9 genres), individual users peak at n* approximately 11 exposures while the aggregate peaks at n* approximately 34 -- a 3x gap driven by survival bias. Amazon Electronics (18M reviews) shows a 5.3x distortion. MovieLens-25M (D approximately 1) serves as a negative control, confirming that survival bias -- not aggregation per se -- is the operative mechanism. The distortion is robust to category granularity, engagement operationalization, and classifier calibration. We develop Synthetic Null Calibration to address a 32% false positive rate in per-user classification. Our findings apply wherever individual behavioral parameters are estimated from aggregate curves under differential attrition.

While sentiment analysis is the staple of financial NLP, capturing the nuances of 'why' behind that sentiment remains a challenge. There have been attempts to address this by analysing investor emotions alongside sentiment; however, this does not provide the additional granularity required to understand the target of the emotion/sentiment. We address this by augmenting the StockEmotions dataset with semantically structured opinion graphs, which provide granular semantic depth to the existing sentiment and emotion labels. Using a declarative LLM pipeline, we augment the StockEmotions dataset with opinion graphs for each sentence, derived from 10,000 comments collected from StockTwits. In addition, we study the effect of introducing opinion semantics on baseline classifiers using Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Our analysis demonstrates that incorporating opinion semantics improves classification performance across different emotional spectrums

Open-ended surveys offer valuable insights, but they are notoriously difficult to analyze at scale. Building on previous work that employed traditional machine learning to classify text ("So Many Responses, So Little Time: A Machine-Learning Approach to Analyzing Open-Ended Survey Data") [1], this study investigates how different large language models (LLMs) understand and analyze NSSE open-ended survey responses. We focus on several cutting-edge LLMSs-OpenAI's GPT series, Twitter-roBERTa-base model, and Meta's LLaMA-and compare their performance to the previous machine learning models in tasks like sentiment analysis and thematic classification. Our research analysis assesses model agreement, classification accuracy, and interpretability of reasoning. The findings reveal that current LLMs routinely beat classic machine learning models in classification accuracy, particularly in understanding complex mood and theme patterns in student replies. While LLMs have superior accuracy, they differ greatly in how explicitly and consistently they justify their predictions and apply category boundaries. These distinctions highlight crucial trade-offs when using LLMs for qualitative analysis: increased predictive strength comes with issues in consistency and explainability. Our findings illustrate the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing various LLMs for large-scale qualitative research, and we provide practical advice for researchers looking to balance automation and interpretive rigor.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human perception in urban analysis, yet it remains unclear whether persona prompting produces meaningful and reproducible behavioral diversity. We investigate whether distinct personas influence urban sentiment judgments generated by multimodal LLMs. Using a factorial set of personas spanning gender, economic status, political orientation, and personality, we instantiate multiple agents per persona to evaluate urban scene images from the PerceptSent dataset and assess both within-persona consistency and cross-persona variation. Results show strong convergence among agents sharing a persona, indicating stable and reproducible behavior. However, cross-persona differentiation is limited: economic status and personality induce statistically detectable but practically modest variation, while gender shows no measurable effect and political orientation only negligible impact. Agents also exhibit an extremity bias, collapsing intermediate sentiment categories common in human annotations. As a result, performance remains strong on coarse-grained polarity tasks but degrades as sentiment resolution increases, suggesting that simple label-based persona prompting does not capture fine-grained perceptual judgments. To isolate the contribution of persona conditioning, we additionally evaluate the same model without personas. Surprisingly, the no-persona model sometimes matches or exceeds persona-conditioned agreement with human labels across all task variants, suggesting that simple label-based persona prompting may add limited annotation value in this setting.

Public opinion towards the Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG) on YouTube social media reflects diverse community responses. This study applies the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) method to classify sentiments from 7,733 YouTube comments. The results show that the LSTM model achieves 89% accuracy, with strong performance on negative sentiment (F1-score 0.94) but weaker performance on positive sentiment (F1-score 0.55) due to class imbalance, as negative data account for 87.7% of the dataset. These findings confirm the effectiveness of LSTM for sentiment analysis of Indonesian text while highlighting the challenge of imbalanced data. This research contributes to social media-based public policy evaluation

Online comments play a crucial role in shaping public sentiment and opinion dynamics on social media. However, evaluating their popularity remains challenging, not only because it depends on linguistic quality, originality, and emotional resonance, but also because stylistic preferences vary widely across platforms and user groups, causing the same comment to resonate differently in different communities. In this work, we present HotComment, a multimodal benchmark integrating video and text modalities that comprehensively quantifies popularity from three enhanced aspects: (1) Content Quality, which evaluates semantic similarity with ground-truth human comments and extends quality assessment through four interpretable dimensions; (2) Popularity Prediction, based on trends from models trained on real-world interaction data; and (3) User Behavior Simulation, which models the distribution of platform users and approximates \textbf{engagement scores} through an agent-based framework. Furthermore, we propose StyleCmt, inspired by social ripple effects, where multiple stylistic dimensions align to amplify socially resonant expressions and suppress incongruent ones.

A primary goal of online deliberation platforms is to identify ideas that are broadly agreeable to a community of users through their expressed preferences. Yet, consensus elicitation should ideally extend beyond the specific statements provided by users and should incorporate the relative salience of particular topics. We address this issue by modelling consensus as an interval in a one-dimensional opinion space derived from potentially high-dimensional data via embedding and dimensionality reduction. We define an objective that maximizes expected agreement within a hypothesis interval where the expectation is over an underlying distribution of issues, implicitly taking into account their salience. We propose an efficient Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) algorithm and establish PAC-learning guarantees. Our initial experiments demonstrate the performance of our algorithm and examine more efficient approaches to identifying optimal consensus regions. We find that through selectively querying users on an existing sample of statements, we can reduce the number of queries needed to a practical number.

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

Scarce longitudinal evidence examines LLMs' persuasiveness and humanness along time-evolving psychological frameworks. We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness about polarizing societal topics. In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety. This produced 3,080 conversations over 60,000 turns. After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation. Feedback time series showed longitudinal inertia in convictions, indicating some human anchoring to initial opinions even after repeated exposure to AI-generated arguments. Interestingly, NLP analyses revealed that both humans and LLMs relied on fallacious reasoning in 1 conversational quip every 6, countering the ``LLMs as superior systems" stereotype behind LLMs' cognitive surrender. LLMs' perceived humanness was most learnable from sociodemographic, psychological and engagement features ($R^2=0.44$), followed by opinion change ($R^2=0.34$), conviction ($R^2=0.26$) and personal endowment ($R^2=0.24$). Crucially, explainable AI (XAI) indicated: (i) the presence of individuals more susceptible to LLM-based opinion changes; (ii) psychological susceptibility to LLM-convincing consisted of having more trust in LLMs, being more agreeable and extraverted and with a higher need for cognition. A multiverse approach with mixed-effects models confirmed XAI results, alongside strong individual differences. Talk2AI provides a grounded framework and evidence for detecting how GenAI can influence human opinions via multiple psycho-social pathways in AI-human digital platforms.

This position paper argues that Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems exhibit a factual bias-optimizing for epistemic uncertainty reduction while ignoring the aleatoric uncertainty inherent in opinion-rich content. This misalignment demands a paradigm shift in RAG system design. A survey of 34 major RAG benchmarks reveals that only one addresses opinion synthesis, confirming that the bias is structural and embedded in datasets, retrieval-generation objectives, and evaluation metrics alike. Beyond technical limitations, this bias poses risks to transparent and accountable AI. Namely, echo chamber effects that amplify dominant viewpoints, which can lead to opinion manipulation and under-representation of minority voices. We formalize the problem through the lens of uncertainty quantification, showing that factual queries should minimize posterior entropy while opinion queries must preserve it. We derive a unified objective over coverage, fidelity, and fairness using the Wasserstein distance. As an existence proof, we present Opinion-Aware RAG (O-RAG), an architecture featuring LLM-based opinion extraction and entity-linked opinion metadata. We evaluate it across two domains -- e-commerce seller forums and public hotel reviews. Experiments demonstrate 18-48% reduction in Wasserstein distance to corpus-level sentiment distributions, +26.8% sentiment diversity, and +42.7% entity match rate. Human evaluators preferred opinion-enriched generation 79.2% of the time. We propose a research agenda and argue that as RAG systems increasingly mediate access to information, their ability to represent diverse perspectives is of the essence.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet claims that such simulations are human-like remain largely untested. We conducted a systematic audit (pre-registered on OSF) of LLM-based social simulations across four databases (Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and arXiv). Across 576 studies reported in 350 recent papers, we applied six methodological evaluations: agent Profile, Interaction, Memory, Minimal-Control, Unawareness, and Realism (PIMMUR). Coding every study against pre-specified rules, we revealed that PIM were met more often than MUR. Frontier LLMs correctly identified the underlying social experiment in 65.2% of cases, and 50.6% of prompts imposed constraints that pre-determined the outcome. These compliance rates are upper bounds, because incomplete methodological reporting (for example, unreleased prompts) limits the available evidence. Reproducing five representative experiments (e.g., opinion dynamics), we found that reported collective phenomena often vanish or reverse once PIMMUR principles are enforced, indicating that many "emergent" behaviors are methodological artifacts rather than genuine social dynamics. Current LLM simulations may therefore capture model-specific biases rather than universal features of human social behavior, raising concerns about their use as scientific proxies for human society.