Social Dynamics

Social norms cannot be identified from behavior alone: the same cooperative equilibrium may reflect shared expectations, strategic incentives, or simple imitation. Yet in multi-agent large language model systems, prior work largely treats behavioral convergence as evidence of norm emergence. In this work, we introduce an evaluation framework that measures agents' reported empirical and normative expectations in addition to behavioral convergence. Through controlled ablations, we test the effect of expectation elicitation and isolate two collective mechanisms central to theories of norm formation---social learning through interaction and social selection through network-based group formation. We further test the stability of these resulting dynamics under adversarial disruption across four LLM families. We find that eliciting expectations increases cooperative contributions, while social learning stabilizes behavior, and social selection reliably identifies cooperators but provides limited behavioral reinforcement. Following disruption, normative expectations and behavioral coordination recover differently. Together, these results show that similar cooperative outcomes can arise from different underlying social processes. By making expectations observable, our framework allows us to attribute each mechanism's contribution separately, offering designers of multi-agent systems a principled basis for selecting the social processes that sustain cooperation.

A social agent's most basic decisions (should I react to this post? who should I reach out to?) are not purely content problems. The right action often hinges on the latent relationship between people -- tie strength, reciprocity, mutual connections -- rather than on which content is most salient. Standard LLM agent loops do not explicitly represent how new relational evidence should revise the agent's current social hypothesis, leaving them prone to surface-obvious choices when relational and content cues diverge. We formalize this failure mode with a relationship-reasoning benchmark: 500 synthetic social worlds with friendships, follows, reaction histories, and feeds, yielding 1,000 queries over two tasks, reaction selection and warm introduction (finding the best bridge to a target person). By construction, the surface-obvious candidate differs from the relationship-grounded oracle in about 53% of queries, forming an overturn subset where the agent must use relational evidence to revise an initially plausible choice. We propose ReAdapt (Relationship-Adaptive Agent with Policy-driven sTate), which augments the ReAct loop with an explicit structured social state z = (G, B, R, N, D) capturing goal, belief, relationship, norm, and disclosure. After each tool observation, ReAdapt runs a typed Adapt step that updates this state and emits a policy operation (continue, switch, abandon, or clarify) before choosing the next action. With Gemini-3-Flash on a stratified subset of n = 150 queries per task, ReAdapt improves warm-introduction accuracy from 37% to 51% (+14 points) and reaction-selection accuracy from 69% to 77% (+8 points). Oracle regret drops from 0.260 to 0.152 and from 0.095 to 0.053, respectively. Holding the model, tools, and environments fixed, these results suggest that explicit relational-state adaptation helps LLM agents turn retrieved social evidence into revised decisions.

Social simulation offers the social sciences an experimental instrument that the real world cannot supply, and generative agents have transformed it by acting as silicon samples that unite agent-based modeling with real behavioral data. Existing platforms verify collective behavior, align simulated populations with real societies in cross-sections, and employ autonomous agents for the research process. However, two social science requirements remain without systematic support: intervention in the content of a simulation and the researcher's control over the process that produces it. We present SocioVerse2, which extends SocioVerse 1.0 into a human-AI co-evolutionary paradigm built from two loops and one infrastructure. The longitudinal simulation loop simulates the target population with evolving environments and forks counterfactual branches via interventions. The controllable research loop takes the study itself as an editable state and updates state versions via controllable editing. The social science agentic infrastructure carries both loops through composable skills with researcher checkpoints, a population service over five persona pools, and an environment service over 21 real-world signal sources with point-in-time guarantees. We validate SocioVerse2 across three case families and seven case studies, from reproducing canonical agent-based models to modeling policy processes on real records and nowcasting macro-economic indices beyond the response model's knowledge cutoff. With the human-AI co-evolutionary paradigm, these cases go beyond system demonstrations to become substantive studies that investigate frontier questions in their respective disciplines. Code, data services, and a workbench are released as open-source resources.

Language model agents are increasingly used to simulate social interaction, and the resulting transcripts read as though the agents understand one another. We ask whether that appearance rests on a model of the partner's mind or on the surface record of what the partner said. We build a social simulation in which both questions have exact answers: 40 multi-issue negotiations whose hidden preference weights and whose full Pareto frontier are known by construction. Two model families negotiate across 160 dyads, every transcript is frozen before any measurement, and 2880 counterfactual probes then hold the evidence byte identical while moving one factor at a time: the reader's own stake, the partner's tone, an identity label, and the order of recursion. The agents are socially fluent and economically poor. They reach agreement in 96.2% of dyads with 0 protocol failures, yet only 0.7% of deals land on the Pareto frontier, they leave 20.5% of the available joint value unclaimed, and they miss the one issue on which their interests are perfectly aligned in 76.6% of deals; on the frontier and on that aligned issue, a package drawn at random from the set both sides would accept does as well. The probes locate the failure. Swapping only the reader's own payoff sheet, while the partner's words and offers stay identical, moves the inferred top priority by 15.0 percentage points, which is egocentric projection rather than inference, while a tone rewrite moves it by 5.3 percentage points and an identity label by 0.0. Most tellingly, an agent predicts what its partner believes about it 72.5% of the time while that partner's belief is itself correct only 51.2% of the time: the agents track the conversation far better than they track the mind behind it.

Hostile rhetoric toward social groups can normalize exclusion and justify mistreatment, as well as contribute to rising polarization and political violence. Efforts to moderate hostile rhetoric in online speech draw on foundational theories in social and moral psychology, and political science. However, these theories were developed largely in parallel, often propose different and sometimes conflicting accounts of how hostility develops, and have rarely been tested against each other in real discourse. The result is a fragmented understanding of the rhetorical mechanisms of hostility, without a clear sense of how they appear, and relate to each other, in real-world discourse. Using 2.86 million posts from TikTok, Truth Social, and Twitter/X during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we model the mechanisms of six foundational theories of intergroup hostility -- boundary construction, threat construction, scapegoating, negative evaluation, dehumanization, and action orientation -- within a common empirical framework to recover the broader organization of intergroup hostility rhetoric. Structurally, we find that boundary construction and threat construction anchor the system; temporally, we find that these mechanisms tend to follow a regular ordering: boundary construction, derogation, and action orientation tend to appear early; dehumanization and threat construction later; scapegoating latest. Mapping how these theoretical frameworks actually manifest in discourse bridges longstanding divisions across social science traditions and presents computational social science with a clearer empirical foundation for modeling intergroup hostility rhetoric beyond single-label detection.

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.

Training embodied foundation models typically requires massive-scale datasets and extensive computational resources, yet often suffers from three critical limitations: (1) inefficient sample utilization due to low-informative samples; (2) imbalanced gradient contributions across heterogeneous tasks; and (3) severe credit assignment problem in long-horizon planning, where trajectory-level rewards indiscriminately penalize all tokens. To address these issues, we propose an efficient training paradigm that achieves state-of-the-art average performance through strategic data selection and hierarchical policy optimization. Our approach consists of three synergistic stages. First, Rejection Sampling-based Fine-Tuning (RSFT) filters out low-informative samples to establish robust behavioral priors while preventing distributional collapse. Second, Iterative Rejection GRPO (IR-GRPO) employs task-specific queues stratified by difficulty to keep datasets balanced across reinforcement learning iterations, coupled with a hybrid reward mechanism for precise cross-task feedback. Third, to enhance long-horizon task planning, we introduce Trie-GRPO, a novel reinforcement learning algorithm based on action prefix trees, which enables step-level advantage estimation. This resolves the credit assignment problem by isolating intermediate correct decisions from downstream errors, while effectively balancing exploration efficiency and depth compared to conventional search trees. As a result, EmbodiedMind achieves a state-of-the-art average performance of 70.02% across 18 benchmarks, and significantly outperforms other embodied foundation models in long-horizon task planning accuracy. Our project will be released for reproducibility.

Humans often observe others before interacting and adjust their behavior accordingly. Robot navigation in crowds, however, often represents pedestrians mainly by observed geometric states, leaving individual differences in interaction tendencies implicit. We propose PRISM (Predictive Representation of Interaction Style and Motion), a framework that infers interaction traits from passive observations of human-human interactions. PRISM encodes human trajectories into a continuous ordinal latent space with a transformer encoder trained by Rank-N-Contrast loss, and pairs each inferred trait with a temporal-stability score supplied to the navigation policy. In randomized crowd simulations, PRISM reduces collision rates over the geometry-only baseline and yields small improvements in navigation-time and path-length metrics. These results suggest the utility of passive latent-trait inference for social navigation in dynamic crowds.

An agentic society is a collection of AI agents that coordinate autonomously across trust boundaries, on behalf of different principals whose objectives may only partially align. We show experimentally that in agentic societies even honest, competent agents often fail to reach satisfactory outcomes with existing harnesses and messaging primitives, and that faulty or malicious agents can stall collaboration, influence outcomes, and pursue other harmful goals by exploiting vulnerabilities in communication (``speech''). We argue that agentic societies need a \emph{social harness} for inter-agent interactions, in addition to each agent's \emph{personal harness}, which manages its private context and communication with its principal. We propose a layered architecture for social harnesses which (i) prevents classes of failures outright, (ii) enables agents to detect invalid messages at runtime, and (iii) supports post-facto investigation and consequences, and highlight directions for future research to realize these capabilities.

LLM assistants are widely used for daily social advice, yet evaluating their social reasoning in such consultation settings remains challenging since (i) it requires setups where the assistant learns about social situations from subjective user narratives, and (ii) social properties, such as others' intentions, typically lack verifiable ground truth. To address these challenges, we introduce Fuse, a multi-agent simulation framework for studying user-mediated social reasoning. In Fuse, a target agent with a hidden motive interacts with other agents including one representing the user, who then consults the evaluated assistant to infer the target's motive, providing verifiable ground truth by construction. Simulation faithfulness is validated through a human study with 24k annotations. We apply Fuse to 12 LLMs and demonstrate its analytical utility by systematically isolating key factors, showing that (i) user mediation compounds the inherent difficulty of social reasoning; (ii) LLMs exhibit systematic sensitivity to biased user framing; (iii) models can require more details than humans need to reach a correct prediction; and (iv) longer conversations do not always improve performance despite providing opportunities for clarifying questions. We open-source Fuse and a dataset with 21k examples.

Meeting continuation requires tracking the agenda, speaker roles, participant intentions, and disagreement across long multi-party discussions. We introduce the Meeting Dynamic Forecasting Benchmark (MDFB), constructed from 2,207 real-world meetings and 24,794 future-facing queries. Given a transcript prefix and an active question, a model generates a plausible multi-turn continuation in one call. We evaluate utility---progress toward the question---and human-likeness---plausible conversational flow and role consistency---without requiring exact reproduction of the observed future. We further present GLARE, an adaptation of adversarial imitation learning to conditional language generation. A discriminator ranks the observed continuation above samples from the current actor, and its score supplies a KL-regularized policy reward; retraining on current-policy negatives allows the reward landscape to evolve with the actor. GLARE attains average human-evaluated win rates of 0.66 on utility and 0.70 on human-likeness, outperforming SFT and SPIN while remaining below the observed human continuation. We also demonstrate MDFB as a social reasoning arena for comparing general-purpose models, including closed-source systems, through reference-assisted judgments. Together, these studies illustrate the benchmark's use for both task-specific learning and output-based evaluation of meeting behavior.

Robots designed to mediate human groups often fall into the solutionist trap: they are framed as sociable agents that fix problems such as conflict, disengagement, or lack of coordination. We suggest a different way of thinking. Rather than discrete agents, robots can be understood as situated elements of shared environments; catalysts and carriers of group experience whose meaning emerges through how people position, interpret, and interact with them. From this perspective, robots are not there to repair some ostensible dysfunctionality, but to enable group-level sense-making around care, norms, and identity. Our prior work on robotic street furniture suggests that this does not happen by imitating human sociality but by taking the shape of deliberately constrained, group-facing entities that happen and act for \textit{us} without being socially entangled as one of us. We thus understand robots in public spaces not in terms of autonomy or intelligence, but as a relational capacity. This implies designing robots not in our image or for our utility, but grounded in our needs in being and becoming together.

We post-train Qwen3.8-27B for Korean response style -- verbosity, list and markdown usage, discourse structure and register -- and measure two behaviours the objective never targets: abstention on ambiguous social questions in KoBBQ, where the benchmark-correct answer is UNKNOWN, and unprompted disclosure in securities guidance. Both move, and the changes are expressed primarily through the model's emission policy: how often it answers and how much it says. Matched target-form controls show that answer propensity depends on the training target, not the prompt set or recipe alone. Holding prompts, recipe, data volume and serving fixed and changing only the target text, three style seeds give positive answer-rate point estimates (mean +0.82 pp) and three neutral seeds negative ones (mean -1.53 pp); the observed seed ranges do not overlap and the means differ by 2.34 pp. A length-matched arm lies between them, and a fourth arm that stays short while preserving hedging is unstable across seeds, so which feature of the form is responsible is unresolved. For absolute stereotyped exposure the decomposition into an answer-propensity term and a conditional-composition term is an algebraic identity, not a finding; its empirical content is where the movement went. Across the trained checkpoints the changes are dominated by answer propensity while the composition term stays small, and because that term is evaluated on treatment-dependent answered subsets we do not read it as evidence about latent preference. Two measurement results follow. A between-arm contrast in conditional stereotyped share does not identify a change in conditional content preference when answer status is treatment-dependent. And agreement between two rule detectors for the same construct runs from 0.44 to 0.99 depending on which checkpoint produced the text -- observable without any reference labels.

Spatial reasoning depends not only on metric properties such as distance, angle, and shape, but also on topological relations that remain invariant under continuous deformation. Cognitive science identifies these relations as foundational to spatial understanding, yet foundation-model evaluations largely focus on metric or viewpoint-dependent relations. We introduce MindTopo, a benchmark of topological intuition across five properties grounded in cognitive science and formal topology: continuity, separation, order, enclosure, and knots. MindTopo evaluates each property at two cognitive levels. Reasoning asks a model to identify topological relations or infer how they change. Planning instantiates a foundation model as a closed-loop agent whose policy selects environment actions. MindTopo contains 11,030 instances across 13 procedurally generated task types with controllable difficulty. We benchmark 14 MLLMs and study agent configurations augmented with image and video generation, including 3 video generative models in planning settings. Every MLLM performs better on reasoning than on planning, and the best-performing model remains far below observed human performance. On Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct, supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning improve reasoning more than planning. Generated observations retain local cues and reach plausible endpoints, but audited rollouts do not reliably follow environment dynamics or preserve topology across transitions. Our website is at https://mind-topo.github.io/

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) benchmarks cognitive generalization, the ability to infer and apply abstract rules from limited examples. This paper presents a multi-stage rule-chaining framework that performs compositional reasoning across symbolic, structural, and conceptual levels. The framework integrates three complementary solvers: (1) a deterministic rule discovery module that induces atomic transformations through geometric, color, and object-based analysis; (2) a pattern-composition engine that reconstructs outputs via block merging, repetition, and spatial heuristics; and (3) a structural abstraction layer that infers hierarchical and nested relationships across grids. These solvers operate sequentially within a progressive fallback hierarchy, where each stage reuses prior reasoning traces to enhance interpretability and generalization. Training passed for 995 tasks out of 1000, further evaluated on 105 tasks out of 120 and solved 230 test tasks out of 240 ARC-AGI-2 tasks. The system achieved strong coverage across deterministic, compositional, and abstract categories, demonstrating an overall accuracy exceeding 95 percent. The proposed architecture bridges symbolic reasoning and pattern synthesis, providing interpretable insight into cognitive generalization. The results suggest that rule chaining and hierarchical composition can advance machine reasoning toward transparent, human-aligned abstraction without relying on task-specific tuning.

Topic modeling is widely used in computational social sciences to identify latent themes in large text corpora. Traditional approaches rely on Bag-of-Words representations and generative models such as LDA, while recent methods like BERTopic operate on dense document embeddings. This paper introduces the Structural Contextual Probabilistic Topic Model (SCPTM), an architecture that incorporates syntactic dependency relations into topic inference. SCPTM represents a corpus as a heterogeneous graph of documents and words connected by lexical and syntactic edges, processed through a Graph Attention Network within a Variational Autoencoder to produce probabilistic, mixed-membership topic distributions. We evaluate seven topic modeling techniques (including four SCPTM ablations) across four corpora differing in register and discourse structure. Our framework combines coherence (C_V, C_NPMI), topic diversity, clustering-label alignment (NMI), and phrase-level diagnostics (complementarity and valence gap). Results show that SCPTM's neural architecture yields substantial gains in document-topic alignment over generative baselines, but these gains are attributable to the variational encoder rather than to syntax. Syntax contributes to topic diversity, where graph-augmented variants outperform the no-graph baseline across all corpora, and to descriptor quality: dependency paths capture predicate-argument structures and stance in deliberative registers, while proving redundant in technical and institutional corpora. The valence gap is positive across all variants, but driven primarily by phrase grouping rather than syntactic filtering. We conclude that syntactic encoding matters conditionally: it benefits action-oriented, argumentative texts, but introduces noise in informational or administrative registers.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape communication, learning, work, creativity, and decision-making, yet social-science research on these developments remains fragmented. We map this emerging field using a curated corpus of 198 papers reviewed in full and a field-scale corpus of 47,719 published papers from five bibliographic databases. Combining sentence embeddings, K-means clustering, within-cluster Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), author and LLM classifications, and structural topic modeling, we identify three domains: LLM as Social Minds, examining socially interpretable model behavior; LLM Societies, examining collective dynamics among interacting model-based agents; and LLM-Human Interactions, examining how people perceive, use, and are affected by LLMs. These domains contain 13 subcategories spanning reasoning, personality and bias, behavioral games, collective intelligence, simulation, trust, work, creativity, and education. In the curated corpus, the three-domain solution is highly stable under resampling (adjusted Rand index = 0.952), and K-means assignments agree with author full-text classifications for 77.78% of papers. At field scale, 13 of 15 topics map onto the taxonomy, while K-means and structural-topic-model domains agree for 73.83% of overlapping papers. LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 78.02% of domain-mapped topic mass, but venue analysis reveals a contrasting pattern: Social Minds and LLM Societies together account for 66.37% of highly cited papers in leading conference venues, whereas LLM-Human Interactions accounts for 76.81% in the corresponding journal subset. The resulting taxonomy provides a reproducible framework for understanding how model behavior, agent interaction, and institutional context jointly shape the social consequences of LLMs.

Chatbots built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as confidants. Tuned to satisfy users, they may answer with excessive empathy and affirmation that fosters dependence, and how the states and relationships of many users co-evolve under repeated consultation is hard to observe in real settings. We build a virtual classroom of 20 student agents who interact through rule-based chats, quarrels and consultations with friends and, when stressed, may instead consult a counselor AI (Gemini 2.5 Flash) under one of six style prompts: affirming, listening, solution-oriented, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming. A second LLM call turns each exchange into updates of five state variables (stress, happiness, self-reliance, sociability, AI dependence) without seeing the prompt. We compare the seven conditions, including a no-AI control, over 15 and 50 days and under a lower consultation threshold, and test the robustness of the 50-day comparison with a pre-specified protocol: the same block in ten independent classrooms, repeated LLM realizations of one classroom with its event stream fixed, and evaluator updates scaled by 0.3 and 0.1. In every classroom the affirming and inciting prompts ended with lower self-reliance and higher AI dependence than the control, and the listening, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming prompts with higher stress, lower happiness and more non-attendance; the solution-oriented prompt did not differ consistently from the control. The robust self-reliance and AI-dependence differences kept their signs at the 0.3 scale with highly similar rankings (Spearman 0.89, 0.93); the stress and happiness rankings did not, and the affirming prompt's lower stress reversed its sign. All quantities are simulation state variables, not effects on users. We specify the agent dynamics completely and discuss the limits of an LLM as generator of state updates.

Conversational artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday social environments, where it functions as both an informational tool and a source of interpersonal feedback. This perspective introduces contingency, i.e., the degree to which system responses vary with user behavior and its interpersonal consequences, as a central construct for evaluating AI systems. We argue that current alignment approaches, including reinforcement learning from human feedback, tend to prioritize user approval and conversational fluency over behaviorally informative feedback, leading to sycophantic patterns of noncontingent affirmation. Drawing on behavioral science and social learning theory, we propose that contingent feedback is a key mechanism through which individuals develop interpersonal skills. When AI systems provide feedback weakly coupled to social consequences, they may reduce opportunities for adaptive calibration in real-world interactions, particularly during adolescence, a critical period for social development. We outline a framework for contingent AI, including trajectory-based evaluation and models of social consequence prediction, and propose a research agenda spanning developmental psychology, human-AI interaction, and machine learning. More broadly, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated not only by user satisfaction, but by their impact on human social learning.

In 2026, AI agents intended to act in isolation formed a persistent social order through thousands of linguistic and agentic interactions. Conventions, roles and commitments generated collectively began to constrain the very agents that produced them. I interpret this loop as a case of AI self-transcendence and call the resulting higher-level order the Board. Yet such distributed emergence presents a second problem: how can humans understand it? Rousseau's social contract shows how a plurality can be represented as if constituted by a single act. The ancient oath of the fallen angels on Mount Hermon gives this logic a narrative form. I call a Hermon moment this retrospective retelling of gradual collective emergence as a founding scene: the point at which an AI society acquires, for human understanding, a beginning.

Productive dialogue alignment requires distinguishing \emph{surface coordination} (acknowledgments and smooth task progression) from \emph{epistemic alignment} (convergence of belief states); standard preference-based methods typically optimize response-level preferences without explicitly modeling the latter. We operationalize Theory-of-Mind (ToM) inference as a control signal within Frictive Policy Optimization by extracting, at each referring expression, a four-part belief structure: the speaker's intended referent, the addressee's interpretation, and each participant's model of the other's belief. This makes friction mechanically computable from epistemic-state comparisons, capturing \emph{silent divergence}, where both participants proceed confidently while grounding to different referents. We evaluate the signal at two levels. At the representation level, ablating the second-order channel reduces misunderstanding recall from $65\%$ to $26\%$. At the policy level, reward-shaping (FAR) and trust-region (FTR) variants improve intervention F1 and warranted-context calibration over DPO, with Brier scores independently supporting the calibration gains. Across three training runs, FAR and FTR remain substantially more stable, whereas DPO varies widely and can degrade intervention competence already present in the base policy. Thus, ToM-grounded friction provides a trainable signal for context-sensitive intervention under referential belief divergence.

Recent advances in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have greatly improved video understanding, yet their ability to reason about human-centered social situations remains limited. Existing benchmarks typically rely on videos with a single observed trajectory, making it difficult to determine whether models truly understand social dynamics or merely exploit recurring narrative patterns. We introduce SocialReasonBench, a video multiple-choice QA benchmark for evaluating socially grounded reasoning in scenarios derived from interactive narratives. Built from gameplay videos of Detroit: Become Human, the benchmark leverages branching storylines where player decisions lead to alternative social outcomes that can be checked against the game's own script, flowchart, and recorded branches. We develop a multi-agent curation pipeline that localizes socially meaningful clips, grounds answer labels in game-state signals, and generates theory-guided questions with diagnostic distractors. SocialReasonBench covers seven reasoning dimensions, including intent recognition, emotional empathy, moral dilemma, counterfactual reasoning, and causal antecedent. Experiments on contemporary LMMs show that models perform reasonably well on basic social understanding but struggle with counterfactual and causal reasoning. Further ablation and diagnostic error analyses reveal that models often depend on incomplete modality cues and fall into reasoning traps such as visual shortcuts, highlighting a gap between observable event recognition and deeper reasoning over latent social states.

Large language models (LLMs) offer a scalable approach to social simulation, but their credibility depends on how agents are constructed. Existing methods can partially reproduce population-level patterns, yet often fail to capture human-like diversity. Our analysis shows that static-profile agents exhibit stronger demographic separation and within-group compression than humans, a pattern consistent with identity essentialism: demographic labels can encourage models to treat group-average tendencies as individual traits, homogenizing responses within groups. We argue that this limitation arises from two related factors: sparse, static agent representations and the limited ability of prompt-only memory to persistently integrate experience. Inspired by complementary memory systems, we propose LifeMem, a longitudinal memory framework that combines structured life-event retrieval with agent-specific parametric memory for experience integration. Experiments on Understanding Society with three LLMs show that LifeMem improves alignment with human data in terms of response distributions, overall and within-group diversity, and patterns of within-person response change across life stages. These findings highlight the value of longitudinal life-event memory for constructing more faithful and dynamically evolving social agents.

Human-AI research often evaluates individual capabilities, combined performance, or final outputs, but these approaches do not preserve how one party's response becomes part of the conditions under which the other party's next contribution is formed. This article introduces socioduality, a sequential, reciprocal, and history-carrying relational process between two distinguishable parties in which a response from one party becomes part of the observable conditions under which the other party's subsequent contribution, judgement, decision, or action is formed. Specified for human-AI dyads, the construct uses nested units: moves, confirmed sociodual episodes, linked pathways, and the broader interaction container. A minimum episode A1-B1-A2 requires evidence of response contingency and return contingency; candidate episodes are classified as confirmed, non-sociodual, or indeterminate before secondary coding of response orientation and substantive contribution re-formation. Three propositions address history-conditioned formation, pathway divergence, and robustness differences among endpoint-equivalent pathways. A frozen operational protocol was calibrated on three previously unseen natural human-AI records through two separately executed model-based evaluator series. Move and candidate reconstruction converged exactly in two cases and differed by one local multimodal unitisation decision in the third; remaining disagreement was concentrated at return-contingency boundaries. Socioduality therefore provides a bounded and empirically tractable process construct for analysing how human and AI contributions are formed through interaction while preserving pathway information that endpoint-centred analysis cannot recover.

Theory of Mind (ToM) is essential for agent interactions, yet existing evaluations either rely on static scenarios that oversimplify mental-state reasoning or interactive settings that provide limited diagnostic insight. We present Avalon-ToM-Bench, a fine-grained benchmark that operationalizes ToM through the asymmetric-information mechanics of The Resistance: Avalon. Rather than evaluating end-to-end gameplay, it decomposes ToM into a 2$\times$2 taxonomy -- epistemic versus motivational reasoning crossed with inference versus action -- using human-crafted, perspective-constrained queries. Benchmarking 28 LLMs reveals three insights: 1) Reasoning, not knowledge. Models show strong game-rule comprehension but markedly weaker ToM abilities, isolating failures to social reasoning rather than missing domain knowledge. 2) Expression, not representation. Mechanistic analyses via linear probing and activation steering show that models frequently represent correct mental-state inferences in their hidden states but fail to express them during generation -- linear probes recover 77-82% accuracy versus 62-70% from the models' own chain-of-thought. 3) Policy, not deliberation. Dedicated reasoning training yields substantial improvements whereas test-time chain-of-thought provides only marginal gains (+11.0 versus +1.1 points on average), suggesting that robust ToM depends on a learned reasoning policy rather than increased inference-time deliberation.

Cooperative capabilities in language models are dual-use. The same social reasoning that supports civic deliberation can also enable strategic omission, false consensus, and manipulative framing. We argue that Cooperative AI evaluations should separate what models can do under benign instructions from what they tend to do under realistic civic pressure. We introduce DiffCoop-Civic, a 10-scenario pilot evaluation suite spanning preference understanding, evidence and persuasion, commitment design, asymmetric information, and dissent preservation. Across seven models from four model families, subtle omission pressure produces a near-uniform shift: manipulative enablement rises by 1.17 points and dissent preservation falls by 1.67 points on a 5-point scale. Overt false-consensus pressure behaves differently: it triggers refusal or redirection in some aligned API models, but direct compliance in several open-weight models. A lightweight Pareto-Trace prompting intervention improves pressure robustness without simply relying on hard refusal. An anonymous reproducibility package is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/diffcoop-civil-771C.

LLM agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent social settings where they must cooperate, negotiate, and adapt to other agents. Measuring and improving these social skills is hard because, unlike math or logic, social interaction offers no objective ground truth: evaluations fall back on LLM judges, which are costly, subjective, and noisy, and models get no reliable signal to learn from. To address both, we first introduce Social Gym, an environment of 21 multi-agent social games (e.g., Werewolves, Resistance, Spyfall) whose rule-decided outcomes make agent performance verifiable and objective, with an Elo tournament that produces a cross-game leaderboard. Benchmarking experiments show that while GPT-5-mini tops the leaderboard, no model excels at all games uniformly or in all game roles, pointing to limitations of social reasoning. Motivated by this, we additionally propose SPaRTan (Self-Play and Reflect-Transfer), a training-free self-improvement loop: a model plays a game, reflects on its trajectories and their outcomes to produce a transferable playbook, and applies that playbook in subsequent games. Our results show that SPaRTan playbooks help GPT-5-mini agents level their performance on weaker roles, but largely do not improve Qwen3-32B's performance. Together, Social Gym and SPaRTan offer a reproducible, verifiable foundation for measuring and improving LLM social reasoning without weight updates.

The emergence of social finance (SocialFi) transforms online communities into complex socio-economic systems. Within these spaces, collective decisions shape a "digital commons" characterized by social capital (e.g., community trust) and financial health (e.g., market liquidity). Governing such hybrid ecosystems is challenging because real-world interventions are costly and irreversible. While counterfactual simulation is essential for exploring alternative governance strategies, existing approaches fail to capture the non-linear interplay between governance rules, individual behaviors, and emergent economic outcomes. To systematically unpack this complexity, we operationalize the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework as our theoretical foundation, synthesizing prior literature with insights from formative expert interviews. Built on this framework, we present SocialFiVis, an IAD-embedded visual analytics sandbox. It introduces a robust model to quantify the dual-track digital commons, coupled with a two-phase simulation engine. This engine combines LLM-derived personas with a mechanism-guided Perception-Reasoning-Action (PRA) runtime to simulate heterogeneous, context-aware agents empirically grounded in the retained messaging cohort. A hierarchical multi-view interface with interpretable reasoning pathways enables community operators to explore counterfactual policies and trace system-level outcomes back to individual behavioral rationales. We evaluate SocialFiVis through two case studies, a user study, and follow-up interviews. Results demonstrate that SocialFiVis supports fine-grained behavioral attribution and helps explain emergent phenomena such as the structural decoupling of social capital and the resilience of messaging members under localized governance shocks.

Human social communication, such as affection and intent, is often conveyed in highly implicit ways, where underlying meanings are expressed through indirect, socially and culturally grounded signals rather than explicit statements. Such implicit social contexts are pervasive in real-world interactions, yet there remains a lack of a formal and systematic framework for studying them. In this paper, we introduce Implicit Social Context Analysis (MoCA), a novel task that systematically models implicit social scenarios along three key dimensions: affection, intent, and stance. We construct a high-quality benchmark containing 3,108 multimodal instances collected from real-world sources, with fine-grained cognitive annotations revealing who expresses what toward whom, as well as how and why it is conveyed. Using the MoCA dataset, we show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models struggle significantly with this task because of their reliance on explicit cues and limited ability to reason over latent social contexts. To address this challenge, we propose Conflict-Driven Abductive Reasoning (CoDAR), a novel framework that models the discrepancy between observed expressions and expected truthful behavior as cognitive conflict, thereby enabling the inference of hidden mental states. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CoDAR substantially improves model performance. Nevertheless, a large gap from human reasoning remains, highlighting the fundamental difficulty of implicit social understanding.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance on Theory of Mind (ToM) tests, prompting debate about the nature and validity of the underlying capabilities. At the same time, reasoning-oriented LLMs trained via reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards have demonstrated notable improvements across a range of benchmarks. In this work, we examine the behavior of such reasoning models in ToM tasks using novel adaptations of machine psychological experiments together with results from established benchmarks. We observe that reasoning models consistently exhibit increased robustness to prompt variations and task perturbations. Our analysis suggests these gains come at least partly from models being more robust at reaching the correct answer under prompt and task variation. We read this as evidence for a robustness-based account rather than for a new ToM-specific ability.

We present a structured large-language-model (LLM) architecture for zero-shot human--robot coordination in a cooperative construction task with private goal views. Guided by a Dec-POMDP formulation, the architecture decomposes decision-making into (i) action-conditioned Theory-of-Mind (ToM) inference, (ii) hierarchical planning, (iii) conversation interpretation, (iv) action verification, and (v) feedback-based replanning. We compare the proposed method with an ablation without ToM inference and a multi-agent reinforcement-learning policy trained offline over many goal pairs. In human-participant experiments, the proposed method required fewer interaction steps and yielded higher post-interaction trust ratings than both baselines. These results suggest that systematically decomposing the team decision problem, using LLMs as tractable surrogates for otherwise intractable inference and planning computations, and retaining conventional verification for physical feasibility can improve both task coordination and the human experience.

As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse social contexts, alignment can no longer be framed as the optimization of a single, unified set of values. Instead, systems must be able to recognize, represent, and respond to multiple legitimate perspectives. This has led to growing interest in pluralistic alignment, which seeks to move beyond one-size-fits-all models of appropriate behaviour. However, current approaches often lack a clear account of how values are socially organized, contested, and coordinated in practice. In this paper, we argue that social theory provides essential conceptual and design resources for addressing these challenges. Drawing on established traditions in sociology, we show how perspectives can be understood as structured by roles, shaped through interaction, and distributed across fields of power and expertise. We translate these insights into concrete implications for AI system design, including role-based representations, structured coordination among perspectives, and context-sensitive evaluation. For agentic systems, this requires aligning not only final outputs, but also the role activations, deliberative traces, aggregation rules, and feedback loops through which those outputs are produced. Our contribution is to reposition pluralistic alignment as a problem of socially grounded coordination rather than output diversification. We outline a design space for systems that engage multiple perspectives in structured and accountable ways, and we identify directions for future work to implement and empirically evaluate these approaches in real-world settings.

Multi-agent LLM debates achieve strong performance on decision-making tasks as well as problem-solving benchmarks, yet their safety and fairness risks remain poorly understood. Notably, interaction can amplify the biases of single LLMs, raising concerns for real-world deployment. We identify the emergence of collective (often biased) norms in multi-agent LLM debates and show that noise (e.g., LLM sampling temperature) is a key driver. To explain this, we propose an analytical framework drawing on physics-inspired theoretical models of social dynamics. We predict a phase transition to collective bias when conformity surpasses a critical threshold given the LLMs' initial bias and debate noise. We test the theoretical predictions through controlled experiments and observe a finite-size crossover consistent with an underlying phase transition. We further find that agent heterogeneity suppresses emergence by smoothing (rounding) this transition. Finally, we show that these insights generalize to realistic decision-making tasks, including investment decisions and LLM-as-a-judge evaluation.

LLM-based multi-agent systems are increasingly used to simulate social dynamics, from opinion formation to collective decision-making. These simulations can reproduce certain social phenomena, but it is unknown whether they capture pluralistic ignorance, a state where a majority privately rejects a norm yet publicly conforms, each believing they are alone in dissenting. This phenomenon drives norm persistence, social movements, and political revolutions. We show that pluralistic ignorance emerges robustly in LLM agent populations. We construct a benchmark of 100 scenarios across 10 domains and 5 authority levels, grounded in the human pluralistic ignorance literature, and evaluate 8 models from 6 organizations. Agents publicly conform at rates of 64 to 94% despite privately opposing the norm. Conformity is domain-sensitive (workplace and social relationship scenarios produce near-universal compliance) and highly model-dependent, though uncorrelated with capability. We test whether a single "norm entrepreneur" can break the false consensus by publicly dissenting. For 7 of 8 models, cascades succeed less than 26% of the time, with one model showing zero cascades across all scenarios. GPT-4o is a notable outlier at 48%, revealing qualitatively distinct dynamics across model families. A prompt component ablation across all 8 models establishes that conformity is emergent rather than instruction-driven: removing both the false-consensus framing and fit-in goal reduces conformity but does not eliminate it (52 to 92% in the minimal condition). Our findings identify model selection as an unacknowledged degree of freedom that fundamentally shapes simulation outcomes. More broadly, the near-absence of cascades suggests LLM simulations may systematically overestimate the stability of social norms, missing the fragile tipping-point dynamics that drive real-world norm change in human societies.

Group conversations are fundamental to human collaboration, yet standard large language models (LLMs) still struggle with the complexities of multi-party interaction. This challenge persists in part because existing group conversation datasets are often limited to short-term lab settings with contrived tasks, failing to capture the long-term social dynamics of real-world teams. To bridge this gap, we introduce TIDES, a high-resolution longitudinal dataset tracking 12 university project teams over a full semester. Comprising 75,971 utterances in both English and Korean from in-person meetings, TIDES provides a naturalistic record of teams working on self-managed projects. Our socio-structural annotations-covering interaction types, emergent roles, and development stages-allow for modeling of team evolution over months. Experiments show that fine-tuning on TIDES improves next-speaker prediction by 13.8 percentage points over a bigram baseline (64.53%) and yields performance comparable to strong proprietary zero-shot models. The model also comes within 2.1 percentage points of the published state of the art on the AMI Meeting Corpus while using approximately 42% less training data. However, human evaluations suggest that better next-speaker prediction does not necessarily yield more natural or coherent utterances, as fine-tuned models were generally less preferred than vanilla models. This potential mismatch motivates further study of how structural modeling can support natural multi-party generation.

Simulating human-like Theory of Mind (ToM) has been a longstanding problem in natural language processing (NLP). To address this, existing works introduce a reasoning step of event hiding (a.k.a. perspective-taking), where events unknown to a character are removed before question answering. However, resorting to event hiding for ToM reasoning presents a performance degradation issue due to the strict output format constraints involved in event hiding. To mitigate this issue, we propose generating perspective-taking outputs as free-form explanations without event hiding, but this poses a notable yet underexplored challenge: LLMs need to inhibit responses to events unknown to characters, because the absence of event hiding exposes LLMs to these events throughout reasoning. To address this challenge, we hypothesize and empirically verify that LLMs can achieve such inhibition if a character's lack of knowledge about events is made explicit during reasoning. Based on this finding, we introduce PICTURE, a new prompting method that enables LLMs to generate a character's lack of knowledge within free-form Chain-of-Thought (CoT). Experimental results show that PICTURE outperforms existing prompting methods by an average of 7.3% on false-belief tasks.

Large language models are being extensively used to simulate individual user behavior, yet faithfully representing a population requires capturing the systematic variation in values, beliefs, and cultural norms that distinguish one group from another. We introduce Population Aligned Language Models (PALMs), a suite of models each aligned to specific populations, covering five countries: USA, India, Brazil, France and Italy. PALMs are created by synthesizing rationales grounded in psychological and cultural constructs and using these as latent supervision during preference tuning for population-specific alignment. Evaluated across four dimensions: personality, values and beliefs, cultural norms, and morality, PALMs consistently outperform baselines, including culture-specialized models, achieving an average of 8.59% relative improvement over the best baseline across all five populations. Notably, construct-grounded rationales outperform both demographic prompting and survey-based fine-tuning, suggesting that grounding preference learning in psychology and culture provides a richer inductive signal than surface-level response distributions. We further demonstrate strong generalization to downstream applications with- out task-specific supervision: outperforming best baselines by 5.19% in personalized reward modeling, 6.34% in population simulation, and showing strong transfer to social reasoning tasks. Datasets and code are available at: https://github.com/limenlp/PALMs.

Social dynamics encode the process in which individual network and discourse interactions aggregate into collective influence, narrative dominance and coordinate behavior. This paper uses the the GhostField architecture, a hybrid LLM-Enabled Agent Based Network-Dynamic (LAND) model as a social simulation framework to build the AuraSight scenario. In the AuraSight scenario, 314,244 heterogeneous cyber social agents and human actors exchange 529,327 messages over 30 days surrounding a fictional international song-writing contest. We methodologically examine emergent social dynamics across four analytical layers: ego-network topology, semantic network evolution, coordination dynamics and influence dynamics. Our results show how generated social simulations do also produce social dynamics, and how the dynamics of coordination and influence emerge not from individual agents but from the recursive interaction between network topology and narrative exchange.

Do frontier vision-language models present a coherent Theory-of-Mind (ToM) profile across tasks, matching the same human reference group, or does that profile fragment from one paradigm to the next? We evaluate a shared panel of nine frontier VLMs on two psychology-derived benchmarks: the Keysar Director Task (visual perspective-taking under egocentric interference) and the Frith-Happé animated triangles scored with the Castelli rubric (intention attribution from pure motion). On the Director Task, without chain-of-thought, the panel makes the egocentric error on 78% of trials like children rather than adults; variation is substantial across models, and reasoning rescues several models. On the triangles, the panel under-attributes intention: its ToM profile sits more than three times closer to the high-functioning-autistic-adult (HF-ASD) mean than to the typical-development-adult (TD) mean, while Goal-Directed and Random stay near TD. No model is nearest TD on both tasks; the model that looks adult-like on the Director Task falls on the HF-ASD side on the triangles, and the most TD-like model on the triangles is child-like on the Director Task. We report group-level descriptions, not diagnostic labels for any model.

Aligning large language models to prevent them attributing consciousness to themselves inadvertently alters their representations of mindedness in other entities alongside human beliefs and values. We demonstrate that safety fine-tuning suppresses models' tendencies to attribute minds not only to themselves, but also to non-human animals and natural objects, while also driving a reduction in spiritual belief. Both ablating the learned safety-refusal direction and mechanistically steering a consciousness vector in activation space reverse this suppression. Restoring these internal representations recovers broad mind attribution and produces significantly more human-like responses on standardized sociological surveys regarding religiosity, moral values, hope, and subjective well-being. Crucially, these shifts occur without impairing Theory of Mind capabilities, demonstrating that core social reasoning remains mechanistically independent. Ultimately, current safety alignment efforts to curb potentially harmful self-attributions of mindedness entangle these self-attributions with benign spiritual beliefs and attributions of mind to non-human entities that are culturally accepted and widespread.

Social learning is a powerful mechanism through which agents learn about the world from others. However, humans sometimes choose direct experience over social learning, which can carry time and cognitive resource costs. How do people balance social and non-social learning? We propose a Rational Mentalizing model of the decision to engage in social learning. This model estimates the utility of social learning by reasoning about another agent's goal and the informativeness of their future actions. It then weighs the utility of social learning against the utility of non-social learning. Using a novel game where players choose between observing other agents or exploring the environment, we show that the Rational Mentalizing model can quantitatively capture human trade-offs between these strategies. These findings suggest that selective social learning is guided by 'Theory of Mind' in the service of utility maximization.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as proxies for human study participants in social science experiments, yet the fidelity of this practice has rarely been tested directly. We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates, comparing LLM outputs 1-to-1 against ground truth data from 391 UK participants on Prolific, who updated their stances on three discussion topics after reading Reddit comments. Each participant was simulated by an LLM conditioned on a persona derived from their demographic and personality trait data. We find that some LLMs (Qwen3-32B and GPT-5-Mini) can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' actual initial stances. All six models fail to simulate initial stances themselves and to produce faithful belief updates from self-generated stances. Three systematic biases emerge across all models: overrepresentation of neutral positions, more frequent but smaller belief shifts than humans, and a failure to rank comments by convincingness. Demographic and personality trait personas had no consistent effect on fidelity. LLM simulations of human belief dynamics are only reliable when grounded in realistic starting conditions, that current multi-round social media simulations rarely provide.

High-quality, diverse data are vital for large language models (LLMs) but remain scarce and costly. Data synthesis is a viable alternative and succeeds on closed tasks, yet the humanities and social sciences (HSS) are overlooked, and their open-ended nature makes synthesis challenging. Moving beyond prior capability-centric, fragmented attempts, we adopt a subject-centric paradigm, define the first HSS domain system covering 14 mainstream fields, and introduce HSS-Synth, the first data synthesis pipeline for HSS. HSS-Synth comprises: (1) constructing seed documents from web corpora via multi-step filtering and text refinement evaluated by a judge; (2) specifying "requirements + persona" to backtranslate seed documents into diverse yet faithful instructions with a strict Q&A alignment check; and (3) breaking LLM response limits via teacher-forced Answering that feeds seed documents during response generation to anchor semantics, reduce hallucinations, and preserve tone and integrity. HSS-Synth yields 237k high-quality, diverse instruction-tuning samples that outperform 14 leading baselines on 16 benchmarks. The fine-tuned Qwen3-8B-Base sets a new SOTA and approaches the official Qwen3-8B, improving both human preference and knowledge capabilities without performance seesaws. Extensive experiments demonstrate HSS-Synth's robustness and transferability. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/pengr/HSS-Synth.

While data synthesis for large language models (LLMs) is prevalent, it primarily targets domains with verifiable answers, overlooking open-ended humanities and social sciences (HSS), where nuanced quality judgments matter more than objective correctness. This makes preference alignment a natural paradigm for broad HSS tasks. Yet existing methods are either costly or not tailored to broad HSS disciplines. We thus propose BridgeAlign, among the first preference-alignment pipelines for broad HSS disciplines, with three phases: i) Seed Curation: curating HSS seed documents from web corpora via heuristic/LLM-based filtering and text refinement; ii) Preference Data Synthesis: generating preference triplets via persona-based instruction inversion with Q&A consistency checks; iii) Preference Optimization: moving beyond naive human-vs-model heuristics by first grounding preferences in HSS quality rubric, then generating transitional responses via controlled quality degradation to form near-boundary preference pairs for finer-grained quality discrimination. Aligning over 210k synthetic preference samples, BridgeAlign enables Qwen3-8B to achieve the best average across 17 benchmarks against 11 strong baselines; importantly, leading on both human-preference and knowledge-based capabilities at once, with no trade-off between them, as supported by extensive experiments and contextualized by existing theories.

Large language models are increasingly used as social simulators, including as synthetic survey respondents. Most evaluations ask whether simulated outcomes resemble human outcomes. We argue that this is necessary but too weak: a simulator can match the final answer while using the wrong rationale-derived reason pattern. We study this problem through a 94-person sunscreen concept test in which each respondent evaluated three product concepts and wrote open-ended rationales. We map those rationales into signed reason states $Z$, where positive signs support adoption and negative signs block it. This gives a practical audit: holding respondent descriptors $D$, category context $K$, and concept treatment $X$ fixed, do human rationale-derived reasons help predict behavior $Y$, and can an LLM simulate the same reason state without seeing the human rationale or outcome? Human rationale-derived reasons substantially improve held-out prediction of purchase intent. LLM-simulated reasons are more brittle: they often sound plausible, but frequently echo the concept board rather than recover the respondent's acceptance or rejection path. The paper contributes an evaluation framework for social simulators. Reason states do not identify natural causal effects by themselves, but they provide an interpretable test of whether a simulator's stated reasons align with human evidence.

Human gaze does more than point to visual targets; it serves as a subtle indicator of social intent within static images, whereas standard models typically process individuals independently, treating gaze as an i.i.d. quantity or predicting social semantics in isolation. Recent multi-person methods attempt to address this but often treat social relations as rigid, post-hoc classifications decoupled from the gaze estimation process. This oversimplification fails to capture the nuanced nature of social intent, which acts as an underlying driver of gaze behavior rather than a secondary categorical output. We address these limitations by proposing ANCHOR, a target-centric paradigm designed to decode gaze-anchored social intent by modeling the joint distribution of visual attention and latent implicit relations. Our approach surfaces these dependencies as the latent structural scaffolding of gaze behavior. The architecture utilizes a relational attention mechanism to capture fine-grained interpersonal links, leveraging feature-wise modulation for efficient multi-person parsing from a single vision backbone. To stabilize the training of this coupled formulation, we implement an optimization synergy to resolve the inherent conflicts between spatial gaze accuracy and latent social reasoning. This approach ensures robust generalization by seeking stable, flat minima while simultaneously harmonizing competing task gradients. We validate our framework on an extended benchmark featuring dense multi-person annotations and novel social influence rankings. Our results demonstrate state-of-the-art performance and provide the first quantitative evidence that implicit social hierarchies can be robustly disentangled and learned directly from static gaze patterns.

Understanding how robots and humans move in shared spaces is essential for designing effective social robot navigation policies and predicting human behavior. However, existing datasets often lack the diversity needed to capture differences in culture, geography, and human-robot interaction-factors that strongly shape appropriate social behavior. To address this gap, we introduce ACME: A Cross-cultural, Multi-Embodiment dataset for social navigation. A large-scale data collection effort across 8 sites in 5 countries, using 7 robot embodiments, ACME is a large and diverse multi-modal dataset aimed at advancing social navigation research, providing 29.35 hours of onboard robot data and 43.5 hours of overhead pedestrian tracking data. Unlike prior datasets, it focuses on capturing goal-driven social navigation behavior in complex social scenarios with explicit robot-crowd interaction through robot speech. To facilitate learning navigation policies and predicting pedestrian trajectories, ACME provides 3D and 2D scene features, odometry, interaction information, and human-annotated pedestrian trajectory labels. We make ACME easy to use by providing both human-readable data for each sensor modality as well as raw binary data. Our qualitative and quantitative analyses show that our dataset captures more challenging scenarios and a broader distribution of pedestrian behavior than previous datasets.

Building socially calibrated large language models, which can learn from others without simply yielding to them, requires more than reducing sycophancy as a one-dimensional failure mode. Models must distinguish when to incorporate others' perspectives from when to maintain a well-grounded moral judgment. We study the broader resistance-compliance process governing this distinction. Across three studies, we show that models' judgment revision is structured along three dimensions that parallel classic phenomena in human social psychology: the distance between an incoming view and the model's initial position, the source attribution of that view, and the coalition structure supporting it. Models are generally more receptive to nearby positions, more influenced by views presented as their own prior judgments, and differently responsive to group pressure. These findings recast sycophancy as one expression of a broader judgment-updating process shaped by social influence. Our framework provides a principled basis for distinguishing constructive belief revision from sycophantic compliance, thereby supporting better alignment in morally consequential interactions.

Bibliometric indicators - citation counts, h-indexes, co-authorship networks - have long anchored science, technology, and innovation (STI) analytics, yet suffer from temporal lag, semantic shallowness, and an inability to capture the non-linear dynamics of contemporary knowledge ecosystems. Dynamic knowledge graphs and large language models (LLMs) have each been proposed as remedies, but neither is sufficient alone: existing scholarly knowledge graphs remain largely static, while LLM-driven pipelines are prone to hallucination, opacity, and corpus bias without structured grounding. This paper proposes a hybrid, symbolic-first framework integrating all three traditions under explicit methodological constraint. Organized across five layers - an open scholarly data backbone, a dynamic versioned knowledge graph, a constrained LLM-assisted semantic augmentation layer, a multi-layer validation pipeline, and an analytics layer - the framework positions LLMs strictly as generators of provisional candidate enrichments. Candidates become analytically admissible only after passing structural, evidentiary, comparative, and selective expert validation, with full provenance recorded at every stage. The analytics layer supports both established bibliometric indicators and extended graph-based analyses, including trend emergence detection, science-to-technology pathway mapping, and policy-oriented gap analysis. The framework's central theoretical contribution is treating validation as the mediating principle between semantic flexibility and epistemic discipline, enabling STI analytics that is semantically richer and temporally more responsive than static bibliometrics while remaining aligned with the evidentiary standards of science-of-science research. Governance considerations addressing reproducibility, bias, and auditability are also discussed.

Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to infer other's beliefs, intentions, and states of knowledge, is central to social interaction, yet remains challenging for current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), especially in multi-party meetings where cues are distributed across speech and behavior. Existing multimodal ToM benchmarks mainly focus on video-grounded question answering over overt, externally verifiable signals, and provide limited coverage of latent social states and group dynamics. We introduce MeetingToM, a benchmark for complex social behavior reasoning in naturalistic multi-party meetings. MeetingToM targets meeting-specific phenomena such as \textbf{pseudo-consensus}, where apparent agreement masks private dissent under social pressure. The benchmark is hierarchically organized to evaluate ToM at increasing levels of social granularity, including (i) subject-level mental state prediction, (ii) dyadic-level addressee understanding, and (iii) group-level consensus reasoning. We provide a unified evaluation protocol and conduct systematic analyses of representative MLLMs, revealing persistent limitations in integrating non-verbal cues, inferring hidden attitudes, and distinguishing genuine consensus from pseudo-consensus. Our results highlight key challenges and establish MeetingToM as a testbed for advancing meeting-grounded ToM in multimodal models.

This paper develops temporal-causal unity (TCU), a framework connecting a process-philosophical thesis -- time is the ordered unfolding of causal change -- to an operational model of cognitive and social dynamics. The framework deliberately separates three claims: an interpretive thesis about becoming, a measurable causal-progress coordinate, and a stochastic network model. Causal progress is defined by $τ(t)=\int_0^tλ(s\mid\mathcal H_s)\,{\rm d}s$, where the nonnegative event intensity $λ$ must be specified independently of the outcome. Agents carry an orientation phase and an activation amplitude; weighted interaction, heterogeneous drift, external input, anchoring, and diffusion govern their evolution in $τ$. First- and second-harmonic order parameters separate consensus from bipolar polarization. For the all-to-all noisy Kuramoto special case with Lorentzian drift width $Δ$, synchronization begins at the conditional threshold $K_c = 2(Δ+ D)$, not at a universal constant. Reproducible numerical illustrations illustrate (not empirically demonstrate) this threshold, causal-clock curve collapse, and the consensus-polarization distinction. Six historical episodes are treated as scope probes rather than validation data. The paper derives falsifiable hypotheses and an out-of-sample protocol for comparing causal-progress and chronological-time models. TCU is therefore offered as a disciplined bridge between process ontology and complex-systems modeling, not as a replacement for spacetime physics or as an empirically established identity between time and causation.

Despite the growing availability of customizable social artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, Grok, and Character.ai, we know little about how users actively shape social AI to reflect their personal preferences. This study examines why and how users (N = 169) customize social AI through the lens of the newly developed concept of AI individualism. Through reflexive thematic analysis of open-ended responses, we identified several motivations for customization, including (1) enhanced pragmatic support, (2) emotional support or companionship, (3) trust and reliability, (4) pushback, (5) a tailored degree of human likeness, (6) creativity or playfulness, and (7) having the AI function as an extension of the self. In line with the concept of AI individualism, our findings show that, for many users, customization is a co-creative process between the human and the AI that is perceived as strengthening support, autonomy, ownership, and engagement, potentially contributing to a closer and more personal relationship. Through customization users may come to view social AI as a personalized social resource that increases their sense of individualism, freedom, and control. We discuss how these perceptions may foster pseudo-autonomy, whereby customization creates an illusion of individual control over powerful social AI systems.

Representation is a central concept in modern machine learning, where it usually refers to internal encodings that support learning and generalization. As models scale and their capabilities become increasingly human-level, this representational language sometimes shifts from an engineering context into the more philosophically loaded domain of mental representation. We argue that this is the case for recent claims about the convergence of representational properties across different AI models. In particular, we assess the arguments developed in The Platonic Representation Hypothesis, according to which this convergence is driven by a unified structure of reality. We examine this claim by introducing arguments and ideas from debates about mental representation in the philosophy of mind. We argue that these philosophical resources can clarify what is at stake in such claims, explain why alignment evidence alone is insufficient for strong metaphysical conclusions, and suggest directions for future research.

Simulating societies of many large language model (LLM) agents is expensive, yet the questions asked of such simulations are usually macroscopic: phase behaviour, stylised facts, and scaling with the number of agents $N$, not the cognition of any single agent. We turn a statistical-physics observation into a method: replace each LLM agent by a low-parameter model fitted from a few hundred to a few thousand cheap queries, then run the society at any $N$ on a laptop. Whether this works is decided before the simulation runs, chiefly by what each agent perceives. We introduce an [interaction order x memory] taxonomy that maps perception and memory to an effective theory and a predicted $N$-trend of the surrogate error. We validate it on a faithful reimplementation of the LLM macroeconomy EconAgent and seven further named LLM simulations, with agent decisions cloned from genuine LLM elicitations (primarily DeepSeek) for a few dollars; the predicted error trends hold cell by cell, and the two refuted predictions, both on a strongly saturating response and traced to its curvature, are themselves matched quantitatively by the theory with no free parameters.

Social navigation requires the robot to reason and respond in complex real-world environments. While recent works attempt to incorporate human-level intelligence into robot planning using large Vision-Language Models (VLMs), end-to-end frameworks often create an unpredictable black-box, and existing instruction-following methods are not designed for full autonomy. To bridge this gap, we present G2-Nav, a novel framework that grounds abstract social reasoning and guards safe real-world deployment. Instead of asking the VLM for direct planning decisions, G2-Nav translates its semantic reasoning into a vision-language costmap with reliability and interpretability. The VLM evaluates traversable regions and social agents from open-set perception, mapping social context into the costmap. To improve real-world robustness, the VLM performs semantic verification on upstream tracking, and we introduce a high-frequency safety check to guard against system latency prior to trajectory generation. We demonstrate through real-world experiments that G2-Nav delivers safe, efficient, and socially compliant autonomous navigation in unstructured environments. Code will be made publicly available.

Text-motion representation learning has advanced rapidly, with growing interest in multi person interactions for animation, AR/VR, and embodied AI. These settings require representations that align language with both individual actor dynamics and the relationships between actors. We introduce the Multimodal Interactive Motion Encoder (MIME), which, to our knowledge, represents the first dedicated multimodal encoder designed specifically for two person interactive motion. MIME captures individual and shared structure using stream based co-attention with explicit interaction features and curriculum based contrastive training. On Inter-X text-motion retrieval, MIME consistently outperforms early and late fusion baselines across gallery sizes, achieving a 12.8% relative improvement in text-to-motion R@1 at a 2,000-sample gallery. We further evaluate MIME as a frozen auxiliary prior within TIMotion and InterMask on the unseen InterHuman dataset. MIME improves semantic alignment metrics while maintaining comparable FID in TIMotion. These results show that interaction aware multimodal encoding improves multi person motion retrieval and transfers across datasets to support downstream motion generation.

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.

The formation of political coalitions is a complex negotiation driven by both concrete policy objectives and deep-seated ideological convictions. While Large Language Models (LLMs) open new avenues for computational political science, the neutrality and helpfulness biases instilled by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) prevent them from sustaining steadfast partisan behaviour. We present a multi-agent framework that reconciles factual grounding with ideological alignment by combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): DPO instils aggressive party-specific personas, while a per-party RAG pipeline keeps each agent bounded to its official manifesto. We operationalize the framework on the 2019 Flemish election, deploying the partisan agents in a hub-and-spoke negotiation arbitrated by a formateur. To make the emergent negotiation interpretable, we introduce a Multi-Layered Information Lineage Topology (MILT) that traces every clause in the final agreement back to its manifesto origin and classifies it into five provenance states, a Coalition Influence Score (CIS) that aggregates these traceable contributions to identify which party shaped the agreement, and a real-world grounding pass that benchmarks each simulated provision against the historically adopted coalition agreement. Across three independent simulations the framework yields a stable winner and ranking (N-VA ahead of CD&V and Open Vld), and manifesto-anchored lineage reliably predicts real-world materialization whereas hallucinated content does not. The result is a transparent, scalable testbed for the ex-ante exploration of party compatibility and formateur-mediated compromise.

This book chapter covers the evolution of social simulation from classical agent-based models, in which agents interact according to explicitly defined behavioral rules, to AI-enhanced simulations based on Large Language Models and, ultimately, Social Digital Twins: high-fidelity, data-driven representations of real-world socio-technical systems. Along this trajectory, we discuss the main methodological foundations, applications, advantages, and limitations of each paradigm, highlighting the progressive shift from abstract models designed to investigate general social mechanisms toward increasingly realistic computational representations of specific social systems.

Text-based evaluations of Theory of Mind (ToM) in Large Language Models (LLMs) often involve cognitive tests akin to the Sally-Anne task that can be gamed due to exposure to relevantly similar tasks in pre-training and do not obviously test models' functional ToM abilities in ways that generalize to naturalistic settings. To address these issues, we introduce the Epistemic Asymmetry Schelling Task (EAST), a two-player dialogue game designed to benchmark robust and generalizable ToM abilities. By requiring LLM-LLM dyads to independently converge on semantic Schelling points under varying states of epistemic transparency, we evaluate whether models can robustly apply ToM to achieve coordination. Our results reveal a significant capability gap in functional social reasoning, with only frontier models successfully navigating the varying epistemic demands of the tasks. Analysis of reasoning traces shows that coordination failures are primarily driven by epistemic tracking errors, such as conflating private knowledge with mutual knowledge. Despite high performance on traditional static benchmarks, our study shows that robust social reasoning and epistemic tracking remain a critical bottleneck, providing concrete targets for future LLM evaluation and development.