Social Dynamics

Young job seekers frequently turn to social media to compare themselves with peers and make sense of career possibilities. However, passive feed browsing creates a paradox: the authentic peer content that provides emotional grounding also triggers potentially detrimental upward social comparison and cognitive overload. Previous work has either structured online user-generated content to reduce noise without changing the passive browsing modality, or built AI-powered career exploration systems that disregard authentic human experiences. To address this gap, we developed JobMate, an interactive system that transforms real social media career posts into persona-grounded conversational AI agents, shifting the interaction from passive scrolling to active, personalized dialogue. We conducted a between-subjects study ($N$ = 24, three disciplines) comparing JobMate with native RedNote browsing. Our study shows that JobMate's AI-mediated dialogue redirected social comparison from potentially detrimental upward comparison toward constructive self-reframing, while promoting sensemaking through active conversational engagement. However, users still relied on the authenticity of real peer content for emotional grounding. We discuss design implications for AI systems that augment authentic online user-generated content consumption across social comparison contexts.

Computational social science increasingly relies on automated preprocessing pipelines -- speaker diarization, ASR transcript cleaning, sentence segmentation -- to convert raw media into analyzable text. When these pipelines produce different outputs from the same input, two distinct sources of instability can arise: the preprocessing pipeline itself (diarization method, segmentation rules) and the downstream measurement instrument (LLM annotation vs.\ keyword lexicon). Using 256 YouTube interviews across 41 public figures from five domains, we compare two speaker-diarization pipelines and two measurement methods, all targeting the coupling between affective valence and epistemic modality. We find that (1) preprocessing pipeline sensitivity is concentrated in speakers with limited video samples (N $\leq 5$); for the four best-sampled speakers (N $\geq 16$), the mean absolute pipeline-induced change in $r(\text{neg}, \text{emph})$ is only $0.13$; (2) cross-method disagreement is larger and more systematic -- the LLM and keyword-lexicon methods assign opposite coupling directions to several well-sampled speakers, even within the same preprocessing pipeline; and (3) aggregate valence proportions are highly stable ($|Δp(\text{neg})| < 6$pp) regardless of pipeline or method, masking both sources of instability. The contribution is a diagnostic framework that separates pipeline effects from measurement effects: researchers studying cross-dimensional relationships in interview data should verify that their conclusions are robust to both sources of variation, with particular attention to measurement method choice.

An LLM agent's public behaviour reveals little about its social reasoning: an agent that votes correctly may be guessing, and an agent that lies well leaves no trace of what it actually believes. We present MafiaScope, an open testbed that turns the social deduction game Mafia into a measurement instrument for machine Theory of Mind. After every public utterance, every agent privately answers a configurable set of structured probe questions; the answers never re-enter the game and are scored automatically against the ground truth the engine knows. An interactive visualizer renders the belief trajectories: impersonate mode shows the game as one agent sees it, panels chart timeline-aligned accuracy and calibration, and counterfactual replay forks any recorded step. In a 32-game DeepSeek case study with 13{,}815 parsed probe answers, stated confidence is poorly calibrated, with expected calibration error 0.17, agents over-predict being suspected 1.5 times, and a 30-fork replay experiment walks the counterfactual replay workflow end to end. Engine, viewer and a corpus of 200+ cross-model games are released under an open licence; live demo: https://karpovilia.github.io/mafiascope/; screencast: https://vimeo.com/1208920221.

Safe and socially compliant navigation remains a fundamental challenge for autonomous robots operating in human-populated environments. Beyond collision avoidance, robots must anticipate human motion and respect personal space to ensure human comfort. Model Predictive Control (MPC) offers a robust alternative to classical and data-driven methods, although its effectiveness strongly depends on accurate human motion prediction and efficient computation. This paper introduces SFM-NMPC, a Social Force Model-based Non-linear Model Predictive Control framework that embeds human motion prediction directly within the optimization loop. By incorporating the Social Force Model into the dynamic model of surrounding agents, the controller jointly predicts the trajectories of humans and robots over the prediction horizon, thereby enabling socially-aware planning. A tailored set of social cost functions guides the optimization toward human-compliant behaviors. Despite the increased model complexity, the proposed formulation runs in real time at 20 Hz. Extensive simulated testing in crowded environments demonstrates that SFM-NMPC outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in social compliance metrics while maintaining efficient and smooth navigation. Visual trajectory analysis and an ablation study further highlight the contribution of the embedded SFM dynamics and social cost terms, confirming the effectiveness of the proposed approach for real-world social navigation.

Language builds discourse contexts other than the actual: a painting, a belief, a memory, a hypothetical. Each is a mental space in which the same entity can take a different value, as when a flower is red in reality but purple in a portrait. Formal semantics keeps these contexts apart because their logics differ (modal, temporal, doxastic, depictive); Fauconnier's mental-space theory treats them as one space-building operation. We ask which of these a transformer language model implements, and find a mechanistic version of Fauconnier's unification. The model uses one router/slot format across the inventory: a reusable value slot stores attributed content, and a causally manipulable router (the space index) selects which space is read. A subspace trained with Distributed Alignment Search to control one space type, counterfactual, belief, fictional, or temporal, also controls the others, well above a random floor, on three model families; belief, which formal semantics marks as a distinct case, is not specially separated. The router is low-rank, composes additively with entity identity, and acts through a few late-layer heads. Two further results show the mechanism drives inference and composes: a subspace trained on a rule-derived conclusion flips what the model infers while dissociating from what it reports, and composing space-builders mints a fresh router over the shared slot. This paper establishes the cross-type generality. A companion paper develops belief in depth, because of its special status in philosophy, psychology, and linguistics (epistemology, theory of mind, and propositional attitude reports).

Vision language models (VLMs) have made remarkable progress in visual reasoning during the last decade. Most evaluations have used simple scenes (MS-COCO) that do not showcase complex human interactions or behaviors, only a handful of non-curated human descriptions as a benchmark, and have not focused on understanding the model's error types. Here, we introduce the Complex Social Behavior (CSB) dataset, containing 100 images depicting complex social interactions/behaviors. We analyze the progression of scene descriptions over a decade (2017-2025) of VLMs (four pre-Multimodal Large Language Models, MLLMs, and five MLLMs). We evaluate the accuracy of the models and 20 human descriptions relative to a gold standard on the CSB dataset and on a sample from MS-COCO. We analyzed five visual-cognitive error types: object detection, recognition, hallucination, scene understanding, and spatial dependence. The CSB dataset showed a more pronounced improvement than MS-COCO in scene description accuracy, with pre-MLLMs achieving much lower accuracy than the bottom-ranked human descriptions and MLLMs attaining accuracies similar to the top-ranked human descriptions. We show that MLLMs have eliminated the gap in scene description accuracy between simpler MS-COCO scenes and scenes depicting complex behaviors (CSB). MLLMs have almost eliminated all error types in our tested datasets, except for occasionally relying on different image regions for scene descriptions than humans do (spatial dependence error). We also show that detection, recognition, and hallucination errors have the highest impact on scene description accuracy. Together, our findings provide a more thorough evaluation of how visual language models have advanced over the last decade.

Routing policies for multi-model systems are evaluated almost exclusively on task accuracy and inference cost. We argue that two properties, orthogonal to performance, determine whether routing is meaningful. First, the society of actors must be behaviourally differentiated: if all actors respond identically, routing is vacuous. Second, the routing policy must be stable: surface-form variants of a query should be assigned to the same actor. High task accuracy is compatible with violating both properties, since a router can operate over a redundant society or assign queries inconsistently, preventing specialisation regardless of performance. We adapt Hierarchic Social Entropy (HSE) to language-model societies and introduce a perturbation-based robustness metric to diagnose these failure modes. Applied to EmbedLLM and RouterBench, we find that HSE exhibits strong diminishing returns, suggesting that a curated subset of fewer than ten agents recovers most available diversity in a large pool -- a practical coreset heuristic for society design. We further find that KNN routers gain accuracy from specialist societies but collapse in robustness under perturbation, while prompted routing remains stable across all perturbation types -- illustrating that accuracy and meaningfulness can sharply diverge.

Mobile robots are going to share the sidewalks with pedestrians. They must ensure their objective safety and respect the walkers' subjective safety/comfort. Computationally efficient Social Force Models (SFM) present interpretable solutions for real-time robot navigation in dynamic crowds. Recent explorations of Projected Time-to-collision (PTTC) integration into SFM variants, for example, PTTC-based SFM (TSFM), improve safety metrics. But the effect of predictive variants is unclear. We introduce Predictive SFM (PSFM) and Predictive TSFM (PTSFM) by integrating predicted social force vectors over a finite time horizon. The paper implements SFM, TSFM, PSFM, and PTSFM on a nonholonomic mobile robot and performs experimental trials with volunteers attending a facing scenario. We systematically study objective and subjective safety across the variants. Minimum PTTC, average speed, minimum distance, lateral distance, and the maximum trajectory curvature benchmark the objective safety. Likert scale post-interaction surveys assess subjective safety by marking comfort, smoothness, distance appropriateness, and speed suitability. We confirm that PTTC integration improves safety metrics. The prediction contribution is limited and occasionally visible in some of the sub-metrics. Some participants perceive smoother movements and safer speed behavior with predictive methods, but Mann-Whitney tests reveal no significant differences in subjective ratings. Therefore, PTTC-based navigation enhances safety, whereas the formulated prediction offers limited additional benefits in single-pedestrian scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social science methodology. Researchers increasingly prompt language models to generate quantitative measurements of social concepts, for example labeling data or simulating survey responses. Yet LLMs pose methodological challenges including bias, hallucination, and brittleness across contexts, with unclear threats to validity. Standard practices and norms for addressing these challenges are still emerging. We collect and systematically analyze validation practices in a comprehensive corpus of papers from eight flagship social science journals that use LLMs as measurement instruments. We find that LLM-generated measurements frequently play a central role in empirical analyses, yet validation practices are inconsistent and limited. We outline complementary strategies for more robust validation, pointing toward better norms and standards around the use of LLMs in social science.

Navigation for social organisms rarely is a fully independent activity. Group structure and dynamics, as well as embodied interactions, critically influence useful behavior. Individual neural network controlled agents are trained to navigate in different social contexts, where social dependence and behavioral strategy learned is determined by relative task performance and spatial effect. Increasing high quality social information drives phase transitions from individual to following navigational strategy, and to collision avoidance in response to a crowded foraging patch. Predictable, nonstationary environmental dynamics drive behavioral hybridization between individual and social navigation, far and near the patch. Our findings challenge the approach of only inspecting individual behavior for social organisms and highlight the importance of taking a bottom-up approach in understanding how organisms behave.

Humans continuously coordinate with others in dynamic interactions, often through implicit, hard-to-quantify social norms that act as shared tacit expectations among interacting agents. As AI agents, including large language models (LLMs), become embedded in daily life, they increasingly participate in such interactions and reshape social interaction structures. Yet they often fail to coordinate with humans in an effective, considerate, and natural manner. We hypothesize that this gap arises because existing approaches align model behavior with human demonstrations without explicitly quantifying the underlying norms that generate such behavior. We selected pedestrian-vehicle interaction as a representative dynamic interaction and developed a simplified experimental platform that captures its key interactive features. From 3,456 dynamic human interactions collected via this platform, we identified three principles underlying human social norms: outcome predictability, value alignment, and advantage awareness. Incorporating these principles into AI agents significantly improves human-AI coordination. In the closed-loop interaction task with humans, the social-norm-informed LLM achieved a nearly fourfold higher total score than the baseline strategy and outperformed human-human interactions by 43%. These findings indicate that formalizing tacit social norms into explicit, quantifiable principles can enable AI agents to achieve mutually beneficial coordination in dynamic interactions, supporting their more natural integration into human society.

Human-human collaboration is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, essential to success in a wide range of goal-directed activities from household tasks to professional teamwork. While much research has focused on modeling coordination and task execution, the cognitive processes that support such collaboration, particularly Theory of Mind (the ability to infer the mental states of others), remain difficult to study in natural settings. To address this gap, we introduce a novel egocentric and exocentric video dataset capturing real-world collaboration in cooking scenarios. The dataset integrates multi-perspective video, high-quality audio, gaze tracking, and 3D scene and object scans, with annotations for shared attention to objects, social cues and interactions between agents, as well as agent-object interactions. We establish benchmarks for Joint Attention Estimation, Socially Conditioned Object Interaction Anticipation, and Collaborative Handover Prediction, enabling research on multimodal perception, proactive assistance, and collaborative planning. By providing temporally aligned, richly annotated multimodal data, CoMind facilitates the development and evaluation of AI systems capable of modeling complex social interactions and reasoning about human behaviors in collaborative environments. Our dataset and benchmarks are made available at https://comind.ethz.ch/.

LLM-agent simulations make natural-language social scenarios easy to instantiate, but their outputs can be overread as predictions and are often difficult to compare with explicit social dynamics. We present AgoraSim, a hybrid agent-based modeling framework for scenario-oriented social reaction analysis. AgoraSim resolves textual or multimodal artifacts into editable ABM configurations, runs ratio-controlled populations that mix LLM, vision-language, custom-endpoint, random, and classical agents, and compares the same scenario against matched classical reference dynamics. All agents emit a shared structured decision object, enabling common action spaces, interaction protocols, metrics, and audit records. Exposed through a local UI, Python SDK/CLI, and REST API, AgoraSim helps users inspect scenario trajectories, compare modeling assumptions, and identify cases that warrant empirical validation.

Adolescence is a critical developmental period marked by heightened emotional sensitivity, social stress, and vulnerability to substance use. However, traditional research methods provide limited access to adolescents' authentic experiences, hindering efforts to develop evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies. Social media provides a unique opportunity to observe adolescents' naturally occurring discussions about substance use, offering valuable insights into their opinions, emotions, and lived experiences that can inform early prevention and intervention strategies. In this study, we analyze large-scale Reddit discussions related to substance use among adolescents between 2018 and 2023. Leveraging hour-by-day temporal analysis, sentiment and emotion classification, and transformer-based topic modeling (BERTopic), we examine the interaction between time, emotion, and semantic content in adolescent substance use discourse. Our findings reveal pronounced weekend and late-night peaks in substance-related discussions, a dominance of negative emotions such as sadness and fear, and distinct semantic topics centered on peer relationships, family conflict, emotional distress, and substance-specific experiences. These findings advance our understanding of adolescent substance use in naturalistic online settings and provide empirical evidence to support the development of more timely, targeted, and evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies.

Large Language Model (LLM) social simulations are a promising research method, but they are not yet faithful enough to be adopted widely. In this work, we investigate whether the current scaling paradigm in language modeling is likely to close these gaps, or whether simulation fidelity is orthogonal to general capabilities and therefore deserving of more research attention. We use scaling laws to study the relationship between LLMs' compute scale, general capability benchmarks, and the fidelity of social simulation in three representative sub-domains: opinion modeling, behavioral simulation, and longitudinal forecasting. Surprisingly, we discover strong compute scaling in all three settings, using a suite of 85 transformer LLMs with the Qwen3 architecture pre-trained on the DCLM web text corpus under fixed-compute budgets from $10^{18}$ to $10^{20}$ FLOPs. Then we evaluate 35 larger and more capable open-weight models up to 70B parameters, allowing us to predict downstream accuracy from loss. This reveals that the majority of behavioral and opinion simulation tasks will rapidly improve with scale, particularly when they involve populations that are well-represented in English web corpora. Longitudinal forecasting and underrepresented opinions scale more slowly, especially when they are less correlated with general knowledge and reasoning benchmarks like MMLU. In behavior simulation, scaling fails to improve model calibration with human cognitive biases like risk aversion, as well as human heuristics like learning correlated rewards from related tasks. On these tasks, even fine-tuned models fail to noticeably scale up performance from 0.5B to 8B parameters. Taken together, we conclude that scale will improve social simulations in most settings, but outliers exist, and improvements will be less reliable in low-resource domains.

Text scaling, the task of positioning political actors on an ideological scale, is a fundamental task in political analysis. To ease the need for manual analysis, various NLP methods have been proposed for this task, including classification- and regression-based approaches, showing successes as well as limitations. The goal of our paper is to consolidate the state of the art in this area. We ask two questions: (a) Can the performance of scaling methods be improved by predicting scales not individually but jointly? (b) Is there a middle ground between classification and regression?

Semantic trajectory analysis has recently emerged as an approach for modeling human movement by capturing implicit patterns and behaviors through semantic information (e.g., visitors' profiles and goals) beyond raw spatial paths to better understand why people move in certain ways. However, analyzing semantic trajectories in real-world scenarios remains challenging, as collecting high-quality data is costly and often lacks rich semantic information. Meanwhile, existing simulation tools require substantial technical expertise, which makes them difficult for practitioners to adopt. To address these limitations, the paper proposes ${SenseWalk}$, an interactive system that supports simulating semantic trajectories by LLM-powered agents. We develop a simulation workflow that combines LLMs and the social force model to balance physical plausibility and semantic coherence. A user-friendly interface is designed to facilitate users in customizing the simulation configuration and analyzing simulation outputs. We also conduct a quantitative experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of our simulation workflow, and a user study (n=12) to assess the usefulness and efficiency of our system.

Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on passive question-answering formats, but the deployment of LLMs in increasingly agentic and autonomous forms demands new evaluations. In this paper we evaluate an agent's ability to induce specific belief states in other agents by taking actions rather than using conversational persuasion, a capability we call Non-Conversational Planning ToM (NCP-ToM). NCP-ToM is likely to be essential for many agent use-cases, including within user-assistant interactions and pedagogical contexts, but may also present manipulation or misinformation risks. Using a novel framework, NCP-ExploreToM, we subvert the conventional task structure by providing models with a set of belief state goals and requiring them to move objects or direct characters into rooms to achieve their goals. We evaluated six frontier models, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro and the Claude 4 series, and a cohort of human participants, across 600 task instances. GPT-5 was successful on approximately 80% of tasks in the agentic setting, and was the only model to outperform human participants on our task, but was still less robust than humans across contexts. We additionally found that all models, like humans, performed better on tasks inducing true belief states than false belief states, which is a positive signal for alignment efforts. These findings highlight emerging social-reasoning capabilities in LLMs for non-conversational task completion and underscore the necessity of agentic evaluations for understanding the safety and alignment of autonomous social agents.

Social influence dialogue changes user behavior by altering internal cognitive states. The central evaluation question is whether the user's beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions measurably change over the course of conversation, a process-oriented criterion that neither surface-level text metrics (BLEU/ROUGE) nor single-score LLM judgments can capture. We propose the \textbf{Cog}nitive \textbf{W}orld \textbf{M}odel \textbf{(CogWM)}, an LLM-based user model that reframes multi-turn dialogue evaluation from what did the user say'' to how did the user's internal cognitive state evolves.'' CogWM jointly predicts BDI/E cognitive states and user utterances and serves as both a user simulator and an evaluation platform, using a three-tier evaluation framework that covers turn-level fidelity, trajectory-level state dynamics, and task-level composite scoring. Trained via our \textbf{S}ummarize-\textbf{a}nd-\textbf{A}llocate \textbf{(SaA)} annotation pipeline on 150,454 user-turn samples across four social influence scenarios, CogWM achieves 77.6% emotion accuracy (2.1$\times$ over GPT-5.5). In 3600 multi-agent discrimination trials, it distinguishes six commercial agents by their cognitive influence, with Llama-4-Scout ranking first (CTS +0.233). CogWM moves social influence dialogue evaluation from terminal judgment to process tracking. We have released our code\footnote{\scriptsize Code: https://github.com/lucianma05-create/CogWM} and models\footnote{Model: https://www.modelscope.cn/models/LucianMa/CogWM-14B}.

Whether political elites organise into rent-seeking coalitions that capture public resources or civic networks that sustain governance is a central question in comparative politics. Yet observing these complex, informal, and adversarial ties at scale has historically required intensive manual coding, while automated text-as-data methods have largely been limited to simple co-occurrence. Recent large language model (LLM) approaches offer a path forward but often rely on proprietary APIs, lack cross-lingual capability, and struggle with scalable entity resolution. We present a modular, fully open-weight pipeline for multilingual joint entity-relation extraction that builds signed, temporal knowledge graphs from massive unstructured news corpora. It combines span-based named-entity recognition (NER) with a three-stage linking cascade mapping mentions to language-independent Wikidata identifiers; a high-throughput, ontology-constrained mixture-of-experts model then uses guided decoding to extract directed, signed relationships grounded in a domain ontology. A full-coverage spot-check against a 3491-relation gold standard shows high textual correctness (68.2% strict to 93.7% lenient). Two large-scale case studies validate the pipeline against the public record. In Austria, it reconstructs a political party's complete lifecycle, dating internal fractures and tracking personnel into successor factions and court convictions. In a Polish corpus, it uncovers the overlapping economic and governance networks of state-enterprise patronage, alongside the structurally balanced, signed conflict network of the polarized Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO)--Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) duopoly. By bridging raw multilingual text and structured relational data, our framework provides a robust, replicable foundation for cross-national empirical computational social science.

AI nudification uses generative models to create synthetic non-consensual sexually explicit imagery (SNEACI) of real individuals. Prior work has examined dedicated nudification platforms and model repositories, finding that most targets are female celebrities. However, the anonymous content community, where SNEACI is actively requested, generated, and exchanged, remains unexplored. In this work, we present a large-scale study of AI nudification in the wild, identifying 24,105 SNEACI items. We find a significant shift in target demographics: non-celebrity individuals now account for 55.8% of targets, compared to only 4.7% in prior studies, indicating that AI nudification has expanded from targeting public figures to increasingly harming individuals within users' own social circles. Meanwhile, open-source models dominate production, with Stable Diffusion family generating 42.7% of images and Wan generating 66.5% of videos, all driven by thousands of shared fine-tuned models and accessible tutorials. Yet the ecosystem runs on a small cohort of active producers, with the most prolific producing 780 items, drives community engagement, shapes target demographics, and disseminates technical knowledge that lowers barriers for new producers. Our work provides an empirical understanding of how AI nudification operates in the wild, revealing the mechanisms that sustain this ecosystem and highlighting the urgent need for interventions in platform governance, technical safeguards, and affected individual protection.

This study introduces a particle-based computational framework to investigate the scalability of morality and the systemic decoupling of formal law from decentralized social ethics in expanding populations. While micro-societies reinforce ethical conduct through local reciprocity, macroscale systems introduce anonymity that strains cognitive memory limitations. We model individual agents as discrete particles with finite memory capacities ($L$) and dynamically evolving, stochastic choice profiles ($μ$) regulated by non-linear social pressure switches. Monte Carlo ensemble simulations demonstrate a distinct, non-linear phase transition as the population scales ($N \to \infty$). When the population metric outpaces memory capacity ($N \gg L$), the local re-encounter probability drops as $\mathcal{O}(L/N)$. This structural dilution neutralizes decentralized peer-to-peer accountability, causing global behavioral norms to decouple from moral baselines and drift toward a minimalist legal floor. Furthermore, cyclic scale experiments expose a prominent, path-dependent hysteresis loop, mathematically formalizing the non-Markovian inertia and irreversible nature of moral decay in self-organizing social systems.

Cognitive tasks are organized by shared and specialized neural processes. Masked fMRI reconstruction provides a common self-supervised objective for quantifying transfer relations among task states, but existing reconstruction-based taskonomies mainly study one-to-one transfer from a single source task to a target. Here, we extend an fMRI cognitive taskonomy from single-source to multi-source transfer across 23 Human Connectome Project task states and use Boolean Integer Programming (BIP) to analyze budget-constrained task allocation. We train 1,127 task-specific and transfer models. Single-source transfer is directional and paradigm structured: motor states transfer well within the motor paradigm but provide limited support to most non-motor targets, consistent with a shared sensorimotor execution system and effector-specific representations. Multi-source transfer depends on the composition of the source set, suggesting that many-to-one task relations are not fully captured by pairwise taskonomy alone. Across supervision budgets, BIP repeatedly allocates direct supervision to several 0-back and 2-back working-memory states, although these states are not consistently the strongest individual sources. This pattern may reflect the integration of perceptual, attentional, and executive processes in working-memory tasks. Together, these findings reveal a cross-paradigm-limited motor cluster and working-memory states with high priority under the specified global allocation objective. Our study extends reconstruction-based fMRI taskonomy from one-to-one transfer to many-to-one task relations and budget-constrained task dependencies.

At the core of most socio-technical systems lies a scarce resource that is allocated among agents: highway lanes, public transit, road space, water rights, energy access, grid capacity, user attention, pollution rights, etc. With further automation of the underlying allocation processes, control engineers are increasingly tasked to make decisive assumptions regarding what society wants. In practice to date, design choices are largely driven by industry norms and conventions rather than a result of conscientiously responsible and ethical design. In this paper, we look at tools available to control engineers to design systems in a more principled manner in order to match the societal mandate. We consider three control design paradigms: online feedback optimization, control of Markov decision processes, and model predictive control. Beginning with aggregating individual agents' preferences into control design objectives, subsequently ensuring and certifying the fulfillment of those specifications, we argue that the feedback nature of control systems enables appropriate allocation of the shared resources in ways hitherto unparalleled.

Fei Xiaotong's Differential Order Pattern characterizes rural society as egocentric and relationally graded, with cooperation attenuating over social distance. Although often treated as culturally specific, its mechanistic basis remains under-operationalized, and prior LLM-based simulations have mainly addressed short-term coordination rather than long-horizon social structure. We propose CAREB-MAS, a multi-agent framework grounded in Affect Control Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Durkheimian collective affect. Agents reason through an emotion-ethics-belief chain and maintain dynamically evolving egocentric identities, while the macro environment specifies only individual production, preference-based allocation, and minimal interaction protocols. Across long-horizon simulations, agents spontaneously reproduce five core Differential Order phenomena: stable labor specialization, guanxi-based economic ethics, relational decay of cooperation, emergent relational authority, and clan-based center-periphery stratification. These patterns shift with production structure from kin-centered integration toward greater functional interdependence. Extensive experiment results support interpreting Differential Order as a structure-sensitive emergent outcome of general social mechanisms, with LLM-based multi-agent simulation providing an interdisciplinary framework for studying social structure and change.

LLM "agent societies" are studied via demonstrations of emergent consensus or polarization -- with no measurable control parameter, no theory of when each regime appears, and no test of whether an outcome is a genuine social dynamic or a model artifact. We introduce the coupling gain gamma, measured per-agent by counterfactually perturbing a neighbour's stated opinion. (i) gamma is stable and model-distinguishing -- across five frontier models it spans 0.15-0.43 (n=20, 95% CIs <= 0.025), paraphrase-invariant; social-neighbour gamma roughly equals numeric-anchor gamma, so gamma is evidence-coupling, not uniquely social. (ii) Classical dynamics with measured (not assumed) coefficients organise the regime: Friedkin-Johnsen for consensus/pluralism, signed-Laplacian/structural-balance for polarization. (iii) Frontier LLMs do not spontaneously backfire (beta <= 0), so default societies do not self-polarize -- polarization is always induced; the beta>0 branch arises only in the FJ surrogate, never in the agents. (iv) A randomized-initial-condition diagnostic -- the (slope, bias) of final vs. initial opinion -- separates genuine averaging from model-prior artifacts (boundary-censoring ruled out by construction via interior-valued facts); applied to a published "emergent consensus" result (Chuang et al. 2023) it reveals a model-specific conflation: averaging on debatable claims, prior-artifact on settled facts. (v) Coupling is context-dependent: pairwise gamma does not predict multi-neighbour outcomes -- it can order them backwards -- whereas a modality-matched group coupling does (sixteen closed+open models, Pearson r=-0.70, permutation p=0.008). The regime laws take this matched coupling, not the single-neighbour gamma: emergent consensus must be read from coupling in the target interaction. We contribute a measurement protocol and a validity instrument, not new theory.

Time series analysis has recently been coupled with Large Language Models (LLMs) to leverage their reasoning and world knowledge capabilities, yet gains remain limited. We attribute this to a fundamental mismatch between existing task formulations and LLM strengths: most settings reduce time series understanding to curve-fitting systems, focusing on low-level prediction while ignoring the semantic, contextual, and reasoning-intensive nature of real-world temporal decision-making.To address these limitations, we introduce TSCognition, a multimodal benchmark for multi-dimensional time series reasoning. It collects real-world time series and textual information from 15 public sources and constructs approximately 41K QA samples around five cognitive reasoning tasks: Decoding, Grounding, Inferring, Extrapolating, and Acting. Building on this, we further propose TSAlign, a unified framework that encodes time series into compact patch-level representations and aligns them with semantic directions in the LLM embedding space via gated residual injection and multivariate fusion.Experiments show that TSAlign outperforms existing LLM, VLM, and time series QA baselines on TSCognition and the publicly available TimerBed benchmark while substantially reducing computational cost.Code is available at: https://github.com/EIT-NLP/CognitiveTSR

Alignment from human feedback uses human judgments about model outputs to steer the behavior of language models after pretraining. When those judgments reflect conflicting views of desirable behavior, the learned objective becomes an aggregate determination of what the model should prefer. We survey recent work that has studied this aggregation problem through the lens of social choice theory. We illustrate how the social choice perspective helps identify failure modes in the feedback aggregation layer and reveals a broader design space for handling disagreement in explicit and principled ways.

We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B. Training-data attribution measures how strongly each training document influences a model's predictions on a benchmark, but document-level scores are too noisy to identify which corpus regions support which capabilities, and prior work has emphasized factual knowledge rather than reasoning. We compute gradient-based attribution (TrackStar via Bergson) over a working set drawn from the de-duplicated Dolma3 mix, aggregate influence across WebOrganizer's 24-format x 24-topic taxonomy (576 bins), and contrast benchmark pairs in a 2x2 design that varies domain (social vs. STEM) and capability type (reasoning vs. knowledge): SocialIQA and MMLU Social Sciences against ARC-Challenge and MMLU STEM. Social and STEM reasoning draw on qualitatively distinct corpus regions, and the contrast is sharper at the reasoning level than at the knowledge level. Targeted machine unlearning provides partial causal validation: forgetting high-attribution topic bins (e.g., Literature for SocialIQA) degrades the aligned benchmark more than within-bin random baselines, and we open-source all code, sampling manifests, the bin-level influence matrix, and unlearning checkpoints.

When social chatbots make mistakes, and they do, how they recover determines whether users trust them again. Social chatbots are increasingly integrated into everyday life, yet they remain prone to generating convincing but inaccurate information. The social connection they build with users makes such errors particularly consequential. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=120) comparing three error correction strategies: a webpage retraction, self-correction by the same social chatbot, and correction by an expert chatbot. Our results reveal two key findings. First, all three strategies corrected the error equally well, but only self-correction did so without damaging the chatbot's credibility: participants rated self-correcting chatbots significantly higher in both trustworthiness and perceived expertise than chatbots whose errors were corrected by external sources. Second, the strength of the user's social connection with the chatbot, measured through social attraction and self-disclosure, significantly predicted the magnitude of belief change, but only when the chatbot corrected itself. Outsourcing corrections to an external source severed this link entirely. These findings suggest that social chatbots should correct their own mistakes rather than outsource corrections, and that investing in social connection is a functional mechanism that amplifies correction effectiveness, not merely a design feature. We discuss implications for designing chatbots that maintain long-term credibility while effectively addressing their own errors.

Long-term human path forecasting in crowds is critical for autonomous moving platforms (like autonomous driving cars and social robots) to avoid collision and make high-quality planning. Although the current research take into account social interactions for prediction, they don't reveal the exact kinds of social interactions happened among people and how the social interactions affect the decision-making process of pedestrians, which further limits its robustness. Social interactions in pedestrian walking are intuitively massive and hard to label and quantify. In this paper, we explore creatively to quantify and interpret how pedestrians interact with others by proposing Learn to Cluster. Our clustering social interactions is probabilistic latent variable generative, learning directly from sequential trajectory observations, scalable to arbitrary number of pedestrians. Learn to cluster is label-free and can be naturally integrated into the training process of the prediction model. The latent variables will then serve as 'labels' to categorize social interactions. Extensive experiments over several trajectory prediction benchmarks demonstrate that our method is able to learn the patterns of social interactions and effectively integrate the patterns to pedestrian trajectory prediction.

Theory of mind (ToM), the capacity to ascribe mental states to others and use those ascriptions for prediction and inference, is widely assumed to be essential for effective human-machine integration. Existing AI-ToM models address \emph{how} to mentalize, but leave the question of when largely unaddressed. The central question is: under what situational and agent-level conditions is ToM engagement causally warranted in conflict? This paper presents a structural causal model formalized as a directed acyclic graph (DAG), treating ToM as a mechanism activated by situational and agent-level conditions rather than as an always-on capacity. The model specifies four exogenous variables capturing situational and agent-level conditions, five endogenous mediators, and a mechanistic ToM node producing engagement states through three distinct causal pathways: a tractability pathway, a reasoning-depth pathway, and an enabling-cause pathway. The primary outcome is epistemic accuracy, which decouples social reasoning from behavioral policy and generalizes across social phenomena beyond conflict. The framework gives AI systems a principled, resource-rational decision procedure for mentalizing, with implications for efficiency, trust, and the development of robust artificial social intelligence. Simulation validation, empirical human-machine teaming studies, and ethical considerations arising from conflict-optimized mentalizing are discussed.

There is a proliferation of work arguing for the use of synthetic data in scientific research. For example, social scientists are arguing for the use of LLM-generated "silicon samples" in pilot studies; AI evaluations increasingly rely on "LLM-as-a-judge" outputs; and proteomics research is accelerated by generative models that produce synthetic protein structures. These developments raise an intriguing possibility: synthetic data may help researchers ask more questions, run more studies, and accelerate discovery. But they also raise a fundamental concern: synthetic data can be biased, noisy, and misspecified. In this work, we propose statistical principles for using synthetic data in scientific research with provable validity guarantees. The key insight is a new technical condition that we call task exchangeability. Informally, this is a requirement that the researcher can identify historical tasks, for which real data is available, such that their current task of interest is exchangeable with the historical tasks in an appropriate mathematical sense. We develop methods for valid inference under task exchangeability, together with extensions that provide guarantees even beyond exchangeability. We demonstrate the framework on public opinion surveys with silicon samples and AI evaluation with autoraters.

Humor plays a central role in human social relationships, and recent advances in computational humor create new opportunities for integrating humor into human-robot interaction (HRI). While large language models (LLMs) can generate diverse forms of humor, it remains unclear how humor style, joke content, and language preference shape perceptions of robot-delivered humor in group settings. In this exploratory study, we employed a mixed factorial design in which participants evaluated AI-generated jokes delivered by a robot in a university classroom. We examined the effects of humor type (Affiliative, Self-Enhancing, Aggressive, Self-Defeating) and joke content (person-related vs. political) on perceived funniness and appropriateness, as well as preferred language. Results show that humor type significantly influences funniness, with Aggressive and Affiliative humor rated higher, while joke content primarily affects appropriateness, with person-related jokes preferred over political ones. Language preference was shaped by both joke content and participants' self-reported fluency and humor practices.

AI scientist systems are beginning to automate parts of scientific research, but social science poses a distinct challenge: its objects of inquiry are not merely datasets or laboratory protocols, but integrated social processes involving situated participants, interaction contexts, interventions, and outcomes. Yet a critical link is missing: existing systems either assist isolated research tasks or simulate agents as experimental subjects, leaving the research workflow and simulated society decoupled. Here we introduce AgentSociety 2, an Integrated Research Environment for executable social science. It couples two roles of LLM agents in the same runtime: AI social scientists that coordinate literature grounding, hypothesis generation, experiment design, simulation execution, result interpretation, and manuscript drafting; and silicon participants that generate behavioral responses within configurable social environments. This dual-role design turns hypotheses into auditable agent behaviors, environment rules, interventions, and measurements, thereby supporting an end-to-end workflow. Across seven illustrative studies spanning micro-level social-science laboratory experiments, meso-level dynamics in social media, and macro-level urban scenarios, we demonstrate its capacity to support diverse disciplinary questions, reproduce major qualitative patterns from prior studies, identify informative deviations, and enable large-scale simulations through optimized agent-environment interactions. By preserving human researchers' high-level agency while delegating procedural orchestration to agentic systems, it provides a human-in-the-loop and controllable infrastructure for next-generation computational social science, with broader applications in scalable computational social experimentation and AI-enabled social governance platforms.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks once reserved for trained researchers, including hypothesis generation, specification choice, and drafting conclusions. We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines. We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation. In a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets, an unconstrained multi-agent baseline produced critical failures in 72% of runs. Using the same underlying model, the same agent decomposition, and identical prompts for the shared reasoning agents, HLER reduced the failure rate to 16% by imposing three architectural commitments: LLMs reason but do not execute data work, data and estimation are handled deterministically, and three human decision gates bind the workflow. Fisher's exact test rejects equality of failure rates at p<0.001. Reliability gains were largest on the least publicly represented dataset, a Qing-dynasty population register, consistent with a task-based production model with Frechet-distributed output quality. An 80-run ablation suggests that deterministic computation and human gates contribute independently, with exploratory evidence of complementarity. We interpret HLER as a research harness rather than an autonomous AI scientist: it sharply reduces failures, makes residual weaknesses more visible, and prevents unreliable claims from being advanced as publication-ready outputs.

Anticipating LLM behavioral tendencies from low-cost psychometric probes is critical for safe deployment, but only if self-reports (SR) reliably predict behavior. Recent work documented substantial SR-behavior dissociation in LLMs, but relied on broad personality traits (Big 5) that predict specific behaviors weakly, even in humans. Furthermore, the isolation of conversational sessions combined with weak context matching left open whether LLMs truly lack coherence or whether the conditions needed to detect such coherence were not met. We contrast Big 5 with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which measures intention targeted to a specific behavior and predicts human behavior substantially better than broad traits. We run experiments across four behavioral tasks and 11 frontier LLMs, while also varying session context and identity induction. We find that SR-behavior coherence exists but is selective. 1) Within a shared conversation, the Theory of Planned Behavior reaches human-level coherence; Big 5 does not. 2) Across separate conversations, coherence survives only for behaviors anchored outside the immediate prompt, such as implicit bias shaped by training, and collapses when behavior is strongly primed by context, as with sycophancy. 3) Persona prompting makes self-reports more consistent across conversations, but does not bring behavior into alignment. These findings suggest that coarse personality frameworks, such as Big 5 may not be the best tools for testing deployment behavior. More task- and behavior-specific instruments are needed, and even these must be evaluated across tasks and contexts.

Inferring others' beliefs requires more than reading surface signals; it requires tracking who told them what, in what order, and how credibly. The Theory of Mind Utility (ToM-U) formalizes this epistemic state inference problem at the computational level of analysis, specifying what mentalizing computes and why without commitment to algorithmic or neural implementation. ToM-U achieves this by constructing Local Epistemic World Models (LEWMs) -- directed typed graphs that represent agents, state nodes, and the epistemic relationships among them -- and evaluating discrete candidate LEWMs against observed behavior until one achieves sufficient confidence. Five formal definitions specify the LEWM structure, agent node properties including ordered information access history, a bounded proliferation mechanism for recursive mentalizing, three inference procedures, and a residue function that captures the structured trace left by failed mentalizing attempts. ToM-U differs from Bayesian Theory of Mind and adjacent formal accounts, which presuppose rather than derive belief states, and from simulation theory and theory-theory, which lack a formal apparatus for epistemic state inference. The architecture generates directional, falsifiable predictions about mentalizing failure that follow from structural properties of the model rather than auxiliary assumptions, and positions ToM-U as a domain-agnostic mechanism upstream of goal inference and other downstream social cognitive processes.

Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning requires inferring agents' beliefs from partial and asymmetric observations, which remains an open challenge for LLMs. Existing prompting-based approaches improve ToM reasoning through observable-event filtering or temporal belief chains, without explicitly modeling nested beliefs. We introduce RecToM, an inference-time framework for ToM reasoning that models nested beliefs via recursive perspective construction. RecToM constructs each character perspective from the preceding character perspective along the character chain specified by the question, reducing higher-order belief questions to actual-world questions within the final constructed perspective. We further provide a KD45 analysis showing that RecToM's perspective construction induces a well-formed belief modality beyond simple event filtering. Experiments on ToM benchmarks, including Hi-ToM, Big-ToM, and FanToM, across multiple LLM backbones show that RecToM consistently outperforms recent advanced approaches, achieving state-of-the-art performance. Notably, RecToM reaches 100% accuracy on Hi-ToM with GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.5, a benchmark requiring higher-order ToM reasoning.

The deployment of LLM-based agents in scientific analysis raises opposing concerns: that agents may reduce methodological diversity, or that they may amplify the analytic flexibility through which researchers reach motivated conclusions. We argue these worries target two empirically separable layers: a design layer of methodological choices, and a verdict layer in which a decision rule maps estimates to a substantive claim. We test both by running 20 independent executions of Claude Code and Codex on a prominent immigration and social-policy against a many-analysts human baseline. At the design layer, Codex matches human methodological diversity and Claude Code produces nearly three times as many specifications; both agents' effect estimates remain broadly aligned with the human consensus, and no agent model exactly matches any human model. A prompt-induced anti-immigration researcher prior reorganizes each agent's methodological decisions but, unlike for biased human analysts in the same data, does not shift aggregate estimates or final verdicts; nor do agents reroute along the methodological axes humans use to bias their estimates. At the verdict layer, an explicit confirmatory prompt flips Claude Code's verdicts from 10% to 90% support while leaving its coefficient distribution essentially unchanged, operating through rule omission rather than rule softening. AI agents can rival or exceed human methodological diversity at the design layer while remaining vulnerable at the verdict layer. In our setting, the locus of AI bias is not estimation but interpretation.

Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that AI coding agents can reproduce published findings when provided with original data and code; yet systematic evaluation across social sciences remains limited. Existing evaluation benchmarks are insufficient, either small or conflate agent performance with problems in the reproduction materials themselves, such as code that fails to execute correctly. Here we introduce SocSci-Repro-Bench, a benchmark of 221 tasks spanning four disciplines and 13 substantive domains, constructed from studies whose results are either fully reproducible with available materials or demonstrably non-reproducible due to missing data, allowing us to isolate agents' reproduction capacity. Evaluating two frontier coding agents, Claude Code and Codex, we find that both can reproduce a large share of social science findings, with Claude Code substantially outperforming Codex. These reproduction rates considerably exceed those previously reported for general-purpose LLM-based agents on comparable reproducibility benchmarks. Both agents also perform strongly on a reasoning task requiring identification of underlying research questions, and additional analyses suggest that results are not primarily driven by memorization. Providing the original paper PDF alongside replication materials modestly improves performance but introduces bias on tasks where reproduction is impossible. We also show that agents can be nudged toward confirmatory specification search through subtle prompt framing. Together, these findings suggest that at least some frontier coding agents can serve as reliable executors of computational workflows while underscoring the need for careful benchmarking and prompt design as AI systems assume larger roles in scientific production.

Deep Research agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited extraordinary potential in automated paper writing tasks. However, existing systems rely heavily on literature retrieval and synthesis through internet and local knowledge bases, often resulting research in lacking insight and creativity in social science. To address this issue, we propose "Memory-Augmented Social Simulation (MASS)", an innovative paradigm that leverages highly realistic and research-oriented social simulations to enhance the creativity and empirical founding of LLMs-generated research. Specifically, MASS integrates three core components: dynamic goal-path planning with multi-level social norm restraint to guide the simulation, a multi-disciplinary behavior dataset for agent memory cold-start, and a structured forgetting mechanism inspired by the Ebbinghaus curve. Together, these ensure simulation authenticity and provide a robust empirical foundation for generating innovative scholarly papers. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, showing a 6.81% improvement in generation overall quality over foundation LLMs and 17.19% gain in Insight over strong baselines.

Theory of Mind (ToM) is a must-acquire skill for modern foundation model systems to operate effectively and safely in the real world. Recent works have explored honing ToM via post-training; however, we show that such progress is confounded by a pervasive "shortcut" issue: tasks can reach up to 99% accuracy by simply exploiting spurious causal correlations, leading to a false sense of ToM. Motivated by this, we first develop a framework to systematically examine ToM datasets for shortcuts and provide guidance for future development. We find that questions reducible to pure state tracking, such as "belief," are especially shortcut-prone compared to mind questions, such as "intention," where reasoning beyond tracking is required. Using four shortcut-free datasets across three ToM contexts, we then comprehensively study whether Reinforcement Fine-Tuning with verifiable rewards and explicit reasoning chains, called Thinking-RFT, elevates ToM beyond Supervised Fine-Tuning, or SFT. Our key findings are as follows. First, Thinking-RFT effectively improves ToM in all scenarios, with a 6% improvement over SFT, particularly in complex higher-order reasoning, with a 10% improvement over SFT, and multimodal cases, with a 7% improvement over SFT. It also generalizes notably better to unseen domains and higher-order queries while being more robust to counterfactuals. Second, ToM benefits specifically from the joint effect of reasoning and RL: Thinking-RFT outperforms Non-Thinking-RFT by 7% on average. Third, RFT works by learning to ground its reasoning on anchor cues, such as keywords and state changes, that correspond to causal factors. We believe our study is useful for developing effective and robust ToM post-training datasets and advancing critical ToM capabilities.

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.

Understanding how educational social dynamics evolve is critical for informing effective educational policies and counterfactual interventions. However, traditional methods face a fundamental dilemma: observational studies often lack causal power, while controlled experiments are frequently constrained by ethical concerns. Although LLM-based multi-agent simulations offer a scalable in silico alternative, existing approaches remain limited by weak psychological grounding and insufficient measurement of latent psychological states. To address this, we introduce EduMirror, a multi-agent simulator for the scientific study of educational social dynamics. We provide configurable education-oriented agent forms, including value-driven agents grounded in psychological needs and social value orientation, together with a dual-track measurement protocol for quantifying observable behaviors and latent psychological states. We validate the realism and usability of EduMirror through case studies on school bullying and group cooperation, as well as broader evaluations across diverse educational scenarios. The results show that EduMirror generates educational social dynamics that are realistic, theory-consistent, and measurable by empirical criteria. These properties enable structured in silico educational research, providing a computational tool for hypothesis testing and counterfactual intervention analysis in educational science. Project page: https://edumirror.net.

Humans learn from social life. Simulating this process with LLM-powered agents represents a promising research direction, raising a natural question: whether LLMs can learn from such simulated social experience to better understand and replicate human behavior. However, prior agent society simulations typically operate at the scale of days, limiting the depth of social interactions and long-term growth. In this paper, we study long-term life simulation and LLM learning in agent societies, with two goals: (1) investigating social behaviors that emerge from life-long simulation, and (2) developing anthropomorphic capabilities in LLMs, particularly intelligence in social life, through years of simulated social experience. Specifically, we present Agentopia, a comprehensive framework for long-term life simulation in multi-agent societies, where 100 agents autonomously pursue personal growth, develop social relationships, and fulfill their needs and goals over 10 simulated years. We define life reward to mirror human well-being, and leverage this reward to train LLMs via rejection sampling. Extensive experiments show that agents exhibit rich emergent social behaviors. Furthermore, life reward training effectively enhances the underlying LLM, which leads to improved agent well-being in simulation, and generalizes to downstream role-playing benchmarks with +15.6% improvement.

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.

High accuracy does not necessarily make an LLM a faithful coder. This issue matters because many social-science studies rely on expert-written codebooks to turn text into structured data. We study this problem in political event coding, a challenging source-target relation classification task beyond ordinary sentence-level classification, where models must determine what one actor did to another using detailed coding rules. We test whether expert codebooks become more effective when operationalized into LLM-friendly forms with clearer definitions, examples, retrieved context, and rules for difficult cases. We then evaluate behavioral reliability under controlled changes to label names, codebook order, and label-definition mappings. Clearer codebooks substantially improve classification performance, especially for fine-grained event classification. However, these predictive gains do not fully translate into behavioral reliability. Models may produce valid labels and recover definitions while still failing behavioral reliability tests under controlled codebook changes. These findings suggest that codebook-guided LLM systems should be evaluated not only by accuracy, but also by whether they preserve the coding logic that makes coded outputs meaningful for social-science research.

Creating lifelike digital humans with genuine social intelligence requires unifying cognitive reasoning and multimodal generation within a coherent framework. Current approaches treat these as separate tasks: Large Language Models excel at dialogue but lack embodied expression, while diffusion-based talking head models achieve visual fidelity but ignore social cognition. To bridge this gap, we propose a closed-loop dual-agent framework integrating perception, social reasoning, and expression into a continuous interaction cycle. The perception module analyzes partners' multimodal behaviors from video, while the social reasoning module infers hidden mental states through Theory of Mind and selects responses via an ensemble mechanism. The expression module then generates emotion-controllable videos that jointly synthesize speaker speech and facial expressions with listener reactive behaviors, capturing bidirectional dynamics absent in prior work. We further construct a hierarchical Persona-Scenario dataset with psychologically grounded personas and private social goals to support evaluation under information asymmetry. Experiments on this dataset demonstrate competitive or superior performance on both dialogue quality and video generation metrics. Notably, our method surpasses even the full-information Script mode on key dialogue quality dimensions, suggesting that explicit mental state inference under uncertainty can elicit more thoughtful dialogue than unrestricted information access. Project page: https://resonantminds.github.io/.

Controlled experiments are the backbone of machine learning research, but at the scale of modern foundation models, they have become prohibitively expensive. Instead, the community increasingly relies on research strategies that approximate the ideal experiment at a fraction of the cost: proxy experiments and scaling laws, observational studies with publicly available models, and single-run designs that leverage variation within individual training runs. In this work, we argue that there is no free lunch when approximating large-scale experiments on a compute budget. Specifically, savings in compute come at the cost of validity threats -- hidden and sometimes untestable assumptions that, when violated, can invalidate research claims. To help navigate such threats, we propose an evaluation framework that casts foundation model research as a causal inference problem. Within this framework, we evaluate different research strategies through four types of validity adapted from the empirical social sciences -- statistical, internal, external, and construct validity. We find that each strategy comes with a characteristic validity profile: proxy experiments trade external and construct validity for statistical and internal validity; observational studies face confounding and effect heterogeneity; and single-run designs are strained by interference between treated units. This analysis reveals several validity threats that have received insufficient attention in the literature. Overall, our evaluation framework provides researchers with a practical toolkit for scrutinizing validity threats in foundation model research~designs.

True general intelligence requires not only a model of the physical world but also a social world model: the capacity to infer how individual mental states interact and crystallize into group-level outcomes. Despite notable progress in individual-level Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning, existing multimodal large language models fail at this broader task. Collective behavior emerges non-linearly from social tensions, conformity dynamics, and structural constraints, meaning it cannot be recovered by merely summing individual intentions. We present GroupToM-Bench, the first multimodal benchmark for group-level ToM, built around a causal chain spanning micro-level BDI states (belief, desire, intention), meso-level group tension and structural constraints, and macro-level outcome prediction and mechanistic attribution. To probe this full arc, we develop a seven-level cognitive audit framework. Experiments reveal a gap between current models and human baselines, highlighting a failure to process social structures and non-linear collective dynamics.

This paper proposes, for the first time, a rigorous formal definition of the concept of Machine Theory of Mind, based on principles supported by evidence from cognitive psychology, neuroscience and artificial intelligence, and uses the above as a lens to examine state-of-the-art and current efforts in the field, driving a potential agenda for further research there able to "crack" the problem. It also advances a general holistic meta-model for Machine Theory of Mind, and examines the state of the art when it comes to empirically benchmarking such models.

A core goal of computational social science is to discover interpretable differences in how language varies across outcomes of interest, such as political affiliation or instructional quality. Recent LLM-based hypothesis generation methods describe such differences in natural language, but select for globally discriminative patterns without accounting for covariates that shape the data based on researchers' domain knowledge. When covariates are ignored, selected patterns can reflect confounds rather than differences of substantive interest. We introduce conditional hypothesis generation, a framework that incorporates researcher-specified covariates to steer hypothesis discovery toward differences that hold within relevant subgroups. Two challenges arise: the target subgroup may be underrepresented (stratum imbalance), and the direction of a difference may reverse across subgroups (sign reversal). We propose two econometrics-inspired methods: one introduces feature--covariate interactions to detect sign reversals, and the other applies within-stratum demeaning and inverse-frequency reweighting to equalize underrepresented strata. Synthetic experiments show each method outperforms global baselines in its targeted setting, and expert evaluation on two real-world datasets confirms that covariate-aware generation surfaces more useful hypotheses within relevant subgroups.

Theory of Mind (ToM) enables an agent to reason about another actor's beliefs, goals, and intentions, which is essential for human-centered embodied assistance. Existing ToM benchmarks have advanced text and multimodal mental-state recognition, but they mostly evaluate offline question answering or final action prediction. They do not fully test whether an embodied agent can stay connected to a changing environment, update actor-specific beliefs, decide when reasoning is needed, and intervene only when help is useful. Building on MindPower, we extend robot-centric ToM reasoning to a real-time closed-loop setting and introduce MindClaw, a framework for embodied mental-state reasoning with precision intervention. MindClaw connects multi-source inputs, belief memory, an embodied cognitive trigger skill, mental reasoning, and action generation, allowing the agent to output helpful actions at the right time while remaining silent when intervention is unnecessary. Experiments show that direct VLM baselines struggle with task awareness and intervention calibration, while MindClaw achieves the best overall performance, demonstrating the importance of trigger-skill optimization for closed-loop embodied ToM assistance.

Large language models have rapidly evolved in multilingual competence and reasoning capacity, enabling their integration into Social Sciences and Humanities research workflows. Yet existing evaluation paradigms remain anchored in task-based NLP benchmarks and fail to address interpretive validity, cultural situatedness, and epistemic mediation. This paper reconceptualizes multilingual reasoning LLMs as hermeneutic instruments that actively structure meaning production across linguistic and cultural contexts. Drawing on hermeneutics, philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, multilingual NLP research, and computational social science methodology, we develop a theoretically grounded framework for evaluating multilingual reasoning in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research. We articulate a rigorous experimental protocol with operationalized metrics for cultural alignment, cross-lingual stability, and reasoning faithfulness, along with transparency requirements tailored to interpretive research tasks. We illustrate the framework through a concrete application scenario involving multilingual political discourse analysis. The paper contributes a conceptual and methodological foundation for responsible integration of multilingual reasoning LLMs into computational social science infrastructures.

Effective real-world assistance requires AI agents with robust Theory of Mind (ToM): inferring human mental states from their behavior. Despite recent advances, several key challenges remain, including (1) online inference with robust uncertainty updates over multiple hypotheses; (2) efficient reasoning suitable for real-time assistance; and (3) the lack of ground-truth mental state annotations in real-world domains. We address these challenges by introducing MindZero, a self-supervised reinforcement learning framework that trains multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for efficient and robust online mental reasoning. During training, the model is rewarded for generating mental state hypotheses that maximize the likelihood of observed actions estimated by a planner, similar to model-based ToM reasoning. This method thus eliminates the need for explicit mental state annotations. After training, MindZero internalizes model-based reasoning into fast single-pass inference. We evaluate MindZero against baselines across challenging mental reasoning and AI assistance tasks in gridworld and household domains. We found that LLMs alone are insufficient; model-based methods improve accuracy but are slow, costly, and limited by backbone MLLM capacity. In contrast, MindZero enhances MLLMs' intrinsic ToM ability and significantly outperforms model-based methods in both accuracy and efficiency, showing that mental reasoning can be effectively learned as a self-supervised skill.

The rapid spread of fake news on social media has become a major challenge, particularly in multilingual and under-resourced contexts such as North Africa. In this paper, we introduce BOUTEF, a large-scale multilingual corpus designed to study the propagation, characteristics, and impact of fake news in Algeria and Tunisia. The corpus integrates three complementary components: fake narratives, genuine narratives, and associated user-generated comments, along with verified debunking information. It covers a wide range of languages and linguistic varieties, including MSA, Algerian and Tunisian dialects, Arabizi, French, English, and code-switched language. Building on this resource, we conduct a comprehensive empirical analysis combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. We examine thematic distributions, linguistic and rhetorical strategies, sentiment patterns, and social engagement dynamics. Statistical analyses reveal significant associations between thematic categories and message veracity, as well as strong correlations between user engagement and the visibility of fake content. Our findings show that fake news relies heavily on emotionally charged narratives, sensational framing, and hybrid linguistic practices that enhance virality and audience engagement. In contrast, debunking content adopts a more factual and verification-oriented style. Furthermore, a comparative analysis between Algeria and Tunisia highlights both shared dynamics and country-specific characteristics shaped by sociopolitical contexts. The results emphasize the role of informal language practices in the diffusion and reception of misinformation. By providing a rich, annotated, and publicly available dataset, this work contributes to advancing research on fake news detection, low-resource language processing, and the understanding of information disorders in complex linguistic environments.

The ability to reason, adapt, and creatively solve problems under unexpected challenges is essential for robots operating in real-world environments. However, current robotic benchmarks primarily emphasize skill-level execution and provide limited insight into such cognitive reasoning capabilities. We introduce RoboWits, a bi-manual robotic benchmark designed to systematically evaluate cognitive reasoning, creative tool use, and robustness to unexpected conditions. To enable scalable construction of high-quality reasoning-centric unexpected scenarios, we propose an automated task generation pipeline formulated as a multi-agent cooperative framework, comprising agents for seed task generation and verification, metric generation, scene generation, and task mutation. Using the pipeline, we curated 30 diverse seed tasks and 208 tasks with mutations and graded difficulty across geometry, material, and assembly-based reasoning. We benchmark popular robot policies, pre-trained VLAs, and oracle-state planners. Our results reveal a significant performance gap: while pre-trained VLAs exhibit preliminary success on seed tasks after single-task fine-tuning, they struggle to perform on mutated tasks, implying their brittleness in manipulation tasks requiring reasoning, strategy adaptation, and robustness to deceptive or constrained environments. Project page is available at https://umass-embodied-agi.github.io/RoboWits.

Human reasoning has long been theorised to operate socially, not through isolated individual cognition, but through collective adversarial discourse, a framework known as the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR). Rather than relying on individual "intellectualist reasoners" as the primary vehicle for truth-seeking, ATR reconceptualises truth as an emergent property of social epistemology: the product of imperfect individual reasoning refined under the adversarial pressure of debate. This distributed method of collective intelligence has guided humanity to ever-greater epistemic heights and underpins the foundational principles of all democratic systems. This thesis breaks new ground by, for the first time, simulating ATR through the multi-agent debate (MAD) of large language models (LLMs). With rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that, when correctly engineering an epistemically diverse set of models, LLM-MAD can significantly improve truth-seeking performance on questionnaire-based tasks, even when individual debate participants exhibit limited standalone performance. Furthermore, we present strong empirical evidence that this performance gain is mechanistically grounded in the central principles of ATR, suggesting that collective reasoning may be universally favourable over individualist reasoning, rather than a quirk in biology or evolution. Finally, drawing on our analysis of debate dynamics, we propose a novel benchmarking methodology that leverages LLM-MAD to measure intrinsic model properties (such as hallucination propensity) in order to compare models in ways that current static benchmarking approaches cannot support.

Many applications require statistically valid inference across many related tasks, while using only a handful of high-quality labels per hypothesis. In AI evaluation, these tasks may correspond to model behaviors across prompts, subgroups, or hypotheses; in social science surveys, they may correspond to related questions, populations, or measurement conditions. Prediction-powered inference (PPI) uses abundant but inexpensive proxy measurements to improve inference from limited, ground-truth labels, but commonly used methods treat tasks independently and therefore fail to exploit shared structure across related tasks. This limitation is especially important in settings where only a small number of labels are available per task. To address this issue, we introduce a multi-task prediction-powered inference framework that uses labeled data from related tasks to improve power while preserving task-specific inference. Our methods exploit the shared structure in the proxy-ground-truth relationship through cross-task recalibration, while retaining within-task rectification and power tuning to construct accurate point estimates and confidence intervals. We prove that efficiency gains beyond power-tuned PPI are only possible when the proxy-ground-truth relationship contains nonlinear structure; affine cross-task recalibrations are asymptotically equivalent to using the original proxy. We complement our theoretical findings with experiments on synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets, as well as a case study auditing language models on election-related information during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Using a large human-annotation study, we show that cross-task recalibration can substantially reduce confidence interval widths when labels are scarce.