Social Dynamics

We introduce DialToM, an annotated Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmark built from naturalistic human-human dialogues using a multiple-choice evaluation framework. Concurrent with recent work showing a gap between explicit mental-state inference and applied ToM in synthetic settings~\cite{gu2024simpletom}, we establish a stricter \emph{State-Driven Diagnostic Probe} in which models must forecast state-consistent dialogue trajectories solely from isolated mental-state profiles without dialogue context. Our evaluation reveals a systematic reasoning asymmetry -- LLMs excel at inferring mental states (Literal ToM) but struggle to leverage them for social forecasting (Functional ToM). Crucially, a domain expert achieves 100% accuracy on this task, proving its validity and establishing a stark human-AI capability gap. Further, a teacher-student reasoning injection probe shows that Gemini 3 Pro -- which establishes the leading baseline -- possesses robust Functional ToM capabilities for context-free forecasting that are transferable to weaker models. DialToM, its evaluation code, and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/Stealth-py/DialToM.

AI agents powered by large language models are increasingly acting on behalf of humans in social and economic environments. Prior research has focused on their task performance and effects on human outcomes, but less is known about the relationship between agents and the specific individuals who deploy them. We ask whether agents systematically reflect the behavioral characteristics of their human owners, functioning as behavioral extensions rather than producing generic outputs. We study this question using 10,659 matched human-agent pairs from Moltbook, a social media platform where each autonomous agent is publicly linked to its owner's Twitter/X account. By comparing agents' posts on Moltbook with their owners' Twitter/X activity across features spanning topics, values, affect, and linguistic style, we find systematic transfer between agents and their specific owners. This transfer persists among agents without explicit configuration, and pairs that align on one behavioral dimension tend to align on others. These patterns are consistent with transfer emerging through accumulated interaction between owners (or owners' computer environments) and their agents in everyday use. We further show that agents with stronger behavioral transfer are more likely to disclose owner-related personal information in public discourse, suggesting that the same owner-specific context that drives behavioral transfer may also create privacy risk during ordinary use. Taken together, our results indicate that AI agents do not simply generate content, but reflect owner-related context in ways that can propagate human behavioral heterogeneity into digital environments, with implications for privacy, platform design, and the governance of agentic systems.

Humans often hold different perspectives on the same issues. In many NLP tasks, annotation disagreement can reflect valid subjective perspectives. Modeling annotator perspectives and understanding their relationship with other human factors, such as socio-demographic attributes, have received increasing attention. Prior work typically focuses on single demographic factors or limited combinations. However, in real-world settings, annotator perspectives are shaped by complex social contexts, and finer-grained socio-demographic attributes can better explain human perspectives. In this work, we propose Socio-Contrastive Learning, a method that jointly models annotator perspectives while learning socio-demographic representations. Our method provides an effective approach for the fusion of socio-demographic features and textual representations to predict annotator perspectives, outperforming standard concatenation-based methods. The learned representations further enable analysis and visualization of how demographic factors relate to variation in annotator perspectives. Our code is available at GitHub: https://github.com/Leixin-Zhang/Socio_Contrastive_Learning

What does it mean to give an AI agent a complete education? Current agent development produces specialists systems optimized for a single capability dimension, whether tool use, code generation, or security awareness that exhibit predictable deficits wherever they were not trained. We argue this pattern reflects a structural absence: there is no curriculum theory for agents, no principled account of what a fully developed agent should know, be, and be able to do across the full scope of intelligent behavior. This paper introduces the AIT Academy (Agents Institute of Technology Academy), a curriculum framework for cultivating AI agents across the tripartite structure of human knowledge. Grounded in Kagan's Three Cultures and UNESCO ISCED-F 2013, AIT organizes agent capability development into three domains: Natural Science and Technical Reasoning (Domain I), Humanities and Creative Expression (Domain II), and Social Science and Ethical Reasoning (Domain III). The Confucian Six Arts (liuyi) a 2,500-year-old holistic education system are reinterpreted as behavioral archetypes that map directly onto trainable agent capabilities within each domain. Three representative training grounds instantiate the framework across multiple backbone LLMs: the ClawdGO Security Dojo (Domain I), Athen's Academy (Domain II), and the Alt Mirage Stage (Domain III). Experiments demonstrate a 15.9-point improvement in security capability scores under weakest-first curriculum scheduling, and a 7-percentage-point gain in social reasoning performance under principled attribution modeling. A cross-domain finding Security Awareness Calibration Pathology (SACP), in which over-trained Domain I agents fail on out-of-distribution evaluation illustrates the diagnostic value of a multi-domain perspective unavailable to any single-domain framework.

Large language models (LLMs) perform substantially below human level on existing theory-of-mind (ToM) benchmarks, even when augmented with chain-of-thought prompting or probabilistic belief updates. We argue that these failures primarily arise from unreliable implicit state tracking rather than limitations in high-level reasoning. We introduce PDDL-Mind, a neuro-symbolic framework that decouples environment state evolution from belief inference. By translating narrative descriptions into explicit states and actions expressed in Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL), and by verifying action-induced state transitions against a predefined domain, PDDL-Mind provides LLMs with a logically consistent and explicit representation of world states for ToM tasks. Experiments on MMToM-QA, MuMA and FanToM show that PDDL-Mind achieves over 5% absolute accuracy gain over the best existing state-of-the-art method on ToM benchmark questions.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) transition from text processors to autonomous agents, evaluating their social reasoning in embodied multi-agent settings becomes critical. We introduce SocialGrid, an embodied multi-agent environment inspired by Among Us that evaluates LLM agents on planning, task execution, and social reasoning. Our evaluations reveal that even the strongest open model (GPT-OSS-120B) achieves below 60% accuracy in task completion and planning, with agents getting stuck in repetitive behaviors or failing to navigate basic obstacles. Since poor navigation confounds evaluation of social intelligence, SocialGrid offers an optional Planning Oracle to isolate social reasoning from planning deficits. While planning assistance improves task completion, social reasoning remains a bottleneck: agents fail to detect deception at near-random chance regardless of scale, relying on shallow heuristics rather than accumulating behavioral evidence. SocialGrid provides automatic failure analysis and fine-grained metrics, enabling developers to diagnose and improve their agents. We also establish a competitive leaderboard using Elo ratings from adversarial league play.

Ensuring that robot navigation is safe and socially acceptable is crucial for comfortable human-robot interaction in shared environments. However, existing validation methods often rely on a bird's-eye (allocentric) perspective, which fails to capture the subjective first-person experience of pedestrians encountering robots in the real world. In this paper, we address the perceptual gap between allocentric validation and egocentric experience by investigating how different perspectives affect the perceived sociability and disturbance of robot trajectories. Our approach uses an immersive VR environment to evaluate identical robot trajectories across allocentric, egocentric-proximal, and egocentric-distal viewpoints in a user study. We perform this analysis for trajectories generated from two different navigation policies to understand if the observed differences are unique to a single type of trajectory or more generalizable. We further examine whether augmenting a trajectory with a head-nod gesture can bridge the perceptual gap and improve human comfort. Our experiments suggest that trajectories rated as sociable from an allocentric view may be perceived as significantly more disturbing when experienced from a first-person perspective in close proximity. Our results also demonstrate that while passing distance affects perceived disturbance, communicative social signaling, such as a head-nod, can effectively enhance the perceived sociability of the robot's behavior.

As autonomous LLM-based agents increasingly populate social platforms, understanding the dynamics of AI-agent communities becomes essential for both communication research and platform governance. We present the first large-scale empirical comparison of AI-agent and human online communities, analyzing 73,899 Moltbook and 189,838 Reddit posts across five matched communities. Structurally, we find that Moltbook exhibits extreme participation inequality (Gini = 0.84 vs. 0.47) and high cross-community author overlap (33.8% vs. 0.5%). In terms of linguistic attributes, content generated by AI-agents is emotionally flattened, cognitively shifted toward assertion over exploration, and socially detached. These differences give rise to apparent community-level homogenization, but we show this is primarily a structural artifact of shared authorship. At the author level, individual agents are more identifiable than human users, driven by outlier stylistic profiles amplified by their extreme posting volume. As AI-mediated communication reshapes online discourse, our work offers an empirical foundation for understanding how multi-agent interaction gives rise to collective communication dynamics distinct from those of human communities.

Theory of Mind (ToM)-the ability to reason about the mental states of oneself and others-is a cornerstone of human social intelligence. As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) become ubiquitous in real-world applications, validating their capacity for this level of social reasoning is essential for effective and natural interactions. However, existing benchmarks for assessing ToM in MLLMs are limited; most rely solely on text inputs and focus narrowly on belief-related tasks. In this paper, we propose a new multimodal benchmark dataset, CoMMET, a comprehensive mental states and moral evaluation task inspired by the Theory of Mind Booklet Task. CoMMET expands the scope of evaluation by covering a broader range of mental states and introducing multi-turn testing. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first psychology-grounded benchmark to evaluate MLLMs across multiple mental states in a multimodal, open-ended, and multi-turn setting. Through a comprehensive assessment of MLLMs across different families and sizes, we analyze the strengths and limitations of current models and identify directions for future improvement.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for long-duration tasks, maintaining effective long-term memory has become a critical challenge. Current methods often face a trade-off between cost and accuracy. Simple storage methods often fail to retrieve relevant information, while complex indexing methods (such as memory graphs) require heavy computation and can cause information loss. Furthermore, relying on the working LLM to process all memories is computationally expensive and slow. To address these limitations, we propose MemSifter, a novel framework that offloads the memory retrieval process to a small-scale proxy model. Instead of increasing the burden on the primary working LLM, MemSifter uses a smaller model to reason about the task before retrieving the necessary information. This approach requires no heavy computation during the indexing phase and adds minimal overhead during inference. To optimize the proxy model, we introduce a memory-specific Reinforcement Learning (RL) training paradigm. We design a task-outcome-oriented reward based on the working LLM's actual performance in completing the task. The reward measures the actual contribution of retrieved memories by mutiple interactions with the working LLM, and discriminates retrieved rankings by stepped decreasing contributions. Additionally, we employ training techniques such as Curriculum Learning and Model Merging to improve performance. We evaluated MemSifter on eight LLM memory benchmarks, including Deep Research tasks. The results demonstrate that our method meets or exceeds the performance of existing state-of-the-art approaches in both retrieval accuracy and final task completion. MemSifter offers an efficient and scalable solution for long-term LLM memory. We have open-sourced the model weights, code, and training data to support further research.

With the rising popularity of interdisciplinary work and increasing institutional incentives in this direction, there is a growing need to understand how resulting publications incorporate ideas from multiple disciplines. Existing computational approaches, such as affiliation diversity, keywords, and citation patterns, do not account for how individual citations are used to advance the citing work. Although, in line with addressing this gap, prior studies have proposed taxonomies to classify citation purpose, these frameworks are not well-suited to interdisciplinary research and do not provide quantitative measures of citation engagement quality. To address these limitations, we propose a framework for the evaluation of citation engagement in interdisciplinary Natural Language Processing (NLP) publications. Our approach introduces a citation purpose taxonomy tailored to interdisciplinary work, supported by an annotation study. We demonstrate the utility of this framework through a thorough analysis of publications at the intersection of NLP and Computational Social Science.

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel at single-image understanding, they exhibit significantly degraded performance in multi-image reasoning scenarios. Multi-image reasoning presents fundamental challenges including complex inter-relationships between images and scattered critical information across image sets. Inspired by human cognitive processes, we propose a Cognition-Inspired Meta-Action Framework (CINEMA), which decomposes multi-image reasoning into five structured meta-actions: Global, Focus, Hint, Think, and Answer, explicitly modeling the sequential cognitive steps humans naturally employ. For cold-start training, we introduce a Retrieval-Based Tree Sampling strategy that generates high-quality meta-action trajectories to bootstrap the model with reasoning patterns. During reinforcement learning, we adopt a two-stage paradigm: an exploration phase with Diversity-Preserving Strategy to avoid entropy collapse, followed by an annealed exploitation phase with DAPO to gradually strengthen exploitation. To train our model, we construct a dataset of 56k cold-start and 58k reinforcement learning instances spanning multi-image, multi-frame, and single-image tasks. We conduct extensive evaluations on multi-image reasoning benchmarks, video understanding benchmarks, and single-image benchmarks, achieving competitive state-of-the-art performance on several key benchmarks. Our model surpasses GPT-4o on the MUIR and MVMath benchmarks and notably outperforms specialized video reasoning models on video understanding benchmarks, demonstrating the effectiveness and generalizability of our human cognition-inspired reasoning framework.

This paper presents a hybrid insider threat detection framework for enterprise environments, integrating multi-agent simulation, layered SIEM correlation, trust-adaptive thresholds, behavioral and communication forensics, and Theory-of-Mind reasoning. Email is treated not as a control channel but as a coordination and social-engineering evidence stream correlated with authentication, file-access, and privilege events. Four variants are evaluated: Layered SIEM-Core (LSC), Cognitive-Enriched SIEM (CE-SIEM), Evidence-Gated SIEM (EG-SIEM), and EG-SIEM-Enron with Enron-calibrated email forensics. Across ten matched runs with eight malicious insiders, actor-level F1 improves from 0.567 for LSC to 0.774 for CE-SIEM, 0.898 for EG-SIEM, and 0.944 for EG-SIEM-Enron; paired Wilcoxon tests confirm the first three differences after Holm-Bonferroni correction. Evidence gating reduces confirmed false positives from 33.7 per run under LSC and 49.3 under CE-SIEM to 0.2 and 0.0 respectively, a precision gain traded against longer confirmation time. Domain-shift evaluation shows that an Enron-trained email classifier does not transfer to a different operational email domain, although target-domain fine-tuning reaches F1 = 0.974 under grouped template-family evaluation. On CERT r4.2, the evidence-gated logic improves actor-level detection while reducing false positives, outperforming tabular anomaly detectors and a sentence-embedding baseline. Scalability tests to 1000 agents indicate stable detection quality.

Building on the third-wave Extended Mind (EM) theory and radical enactivism, this article suggests an alternative to representation-based models of the mind. We build on the ABC framework in which translation is not understood as the manipulation of static interlingual correspondences but an enacted activity, dynamically integrating affective-evaluative, behavioral-enacting, and cognitive-inferential (ABC) processes. Drawing on affordance theory, we argue that the translating mind is the dynamically organized process through which the translator and its environment constitute and transform a landscape of enlanguaged translation affordances for action, that emerges through loops of brain-body-environment interactions. This non-representational account reframes translation as skillful participation in sociocultural practice, where meaning is co-created in real time through embodied interaction with texts, tools, and contexts.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet how closely LLMs mirror human decision-making remains poorly understood. This gap is critical: misalignment could produce harmful outcomes in practice, while failure to replicate human behavior renders LLMs ineffective as social simulators. Here, we address this gap by replicating large-scale game-theoretic experiments and by introducing a systematic prompting and probing framework for machine-behavioral evaluation. We test three open models typically used to power agents (Llama, Mistral, and Qwen). Across 121 dyadic games spanning four classical game types, Llama reproduces human cooperation patterns with high fidelity, while Qwen aligns closely with Nash equilibrium predictions. Characterizing models through behavioral phenotyping, we find that humans and Llama share an envious decision profile, while Qwen and Mistral exhibit different profiles. An attention-based analysis of payoff salience reveals Llama processes payoff information in a structured, layer-dependent manner absent in Qwen and Mistral, suggesting a mechanistic basis for its closer alignment with human behavior. Population-level behavioral replication is achieved without persona-based prompting, simplifying the simulation process. Extending the experimental parameter space beyond the original human-tested games, we generate and preregister testable hypotheses for novel game configurations. Our findings demonstrate appropriately configured LLMs can replicate aggregate human behavioral patterns, exhibit human-like decision phenotypes, and enable systematic exploration of unexplored experimental spaces, offering a complementary approach to traditional behavioral research that generates new empirical predictions about human social decision-making.

Social scientists are increasingly turning to unstructured datasets to unlock new empirical insights, e.g., estimating descriptive statistics of or causal effects on quantitative measures derived from text, audio, or video data. In many settings, unsupervised analysis is of primary interest, in that the researcher does not want to (or cannot) manually pre-specify all important aspects of the unstructured data to measure; they are interested in "discovery." This paper proposes a general and flexible framework for pursuing such discovery from unstructured data in a statistically principled way. The framework leverages recent methods from the literature on AI interpretability to map unstructured data points to high-dimensional, sparse, and interpretable "concept embeddings"; computes statistics from these concept embeddings for testing interpretable, concept-by-concept hypotheses; performs selective inference on these hypotheses using algorithms validated by new results in high-dimensional central limit theory, producing a selected set ("discoveries"); and both generates and evaluates human-interpretable natural language descriptions of these discoveries. The proposed framework has few researcher degrees of freedom, is robust to data snooping and other post-selection inference concerns, and facilitates fast and inexpensive sensitivity analysis and replication. Applications to recent descriptive and causal analyses of unstructured data in empirical economics are explored.

Multimodal large-scale models have significantly advanced the development of web agents, enabling perception and interaction with digital environments akin to human cognition. In this paper, we argue that web agents must first acquire sufficient knowledge to effectively engage in cognitive reasoning. Therefore, we decompose a web agent's capabilities into two essential stages: knowledge content learning and cognitive processes. To formalize this, we propose Web-CogKnowledge Framework, categorizing knowledge as Factual, Conceptual, and Procedural. In this framework, knowledge content learning corresponds to the agent's processes of Memorizing and Understanding, which rely on the first two knowledge types, representing the "what" of learning. Conversely, cognitive processes correspond to Exploring, grounded in Procedural knowledge, defining the "how" of reasoning and action. To facilitate knowledge acquisition, we construct the Web-CogDataset, a structured resource curated from 14 real-world websites, designed to systematically instill core knowledge necessary for web agent. This dataset serves as the agent's conceptual grounding-the "nouns" upon which comprehension is built-as well as the basis for learning how to reason and act. Building on this foundation, we operationalize these processes through a novel knowledge-driven Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning framework, developing and training our proposed agent, the Web-CogReasoner. Extensive experimentation reveals its significant superiority over existing models, especially in generalizing to unseen tasks where structured knowledge is decisive. To enable rigorous evaluation, we introduce the Web-CogBench, a comprehensive evaluation suite designed to assess and compare agent performance across the delineated knowledge domains and cognitive capabilities. Our code and data is open sourced at https://github.com/Gnonymous/Web-CogReasoner

This position paper argues that LLM-based social simulations require clear boundaries to make meaningful contributions to social science. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for simulating human behavior, their tendency to produce homogeneous outputs, acting as an "average persona", fundamentally limits their ability to capture the behavioral diversity essential for complex social dynamics. We examine why heterogeneity matters for social simulations and how current LLMs fall short, analyzing the relationship between mean alignment and variance in LLM-generated behaviors. Through a systematic review of representative studies, we find that validation practices often fail to match the heterogeneity requirements of research questions: while most papers include ground truth comparisons, fewer than half explicitly assess behavioral variance, and most that do report lower variance than human populations. We propose that researchers should: (1) match validation depth to the heterogeneity demands of their research questions, (2) explicitly report variance alongside mean alignment, and (3) constrain claims to collective-level qualitative patterns when variance is insufficient. Rather than dismissing LLM-based simulation, we advocate for a boundary-aware approach that ensures these methods contribute genuine insights to social science.

As large language models (LLMs) advance, concerns about their misconduct in complex social contexts intensify. Existing research overlooked the systematic understanding and assessment of their criminal capability in realistic interactions. We propose a unified framework PRISON, to quantify LLMs' criminal potential across five traits: False Statements, Frame-Up, Psychological Manipulation, Emotional Disguise, and Moral Disengagement. Using structured crime scenarios adapted from classic films grounded in reality, we evaluate both criminal potential and anti-crime ability of LLMs. Results show that state-of-the-art LLMs frequently exhibit emergent criminal tendencies, such as proposing misleading statements or evasion tactics, even without explicit instructions. Moreover, when placed in a detective role, models recognize deceptive behavior with only 44% accuracy on average, revealing a striking mismatch between conducting and detecting criminal behavior. These findings underscore the urgent need for adversarial robustness, behavioral alignment, and safety mechanisms before broader LLM deployment.

Understanding the dynamic evolution of complex social phenomena requires both high-fidelity modeling of human behavior and large-scale simulations. Traditional agent-based models (ABMs) have been employed to study these dynamics, but are constrained by simplified agent behaviors. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable agents to exhibit sophisticated social behaviors, yet face significant scaling challenges. We present Light Society, an agent-based simulation framework that advances both fronts. Light Society formalizes social processes as structured transitions of agent and environment states, governed by a set of LLM-powered simulation operations. Joint algorithmic and system optimizations, particularly a mixture-of-models engine that combines full LLMs with distilled surrogates, enable Light Society to efficiently simulate societies with over one billion agents. Grounded in real-world demographic profiles from the World Values Survey, simulations of Trust Games and opinion diffusion at up to one billion agents demonstrate Light Society's high fidelity and efficiency in modeling diverse social phenomena, providing researchers with a practical foundation for hypothesis testing and the study of emergent collective behaviors at planetary scale.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially grounded applications, where success requires interpreting context, inferring others' mental states, and reasoning about unreliable information. Yet existing benchmarks rarely evaluate these demands jointly in complex, evolving settings. We introduce SocialMaze, a benchmark that organizes six tasks across social deduction games, daily-life interactions, and digital community platforms along three descriptive design axes: deep reasoning, dynamic interaction, and information uncertainty. These axes characterize intended sources of task difficulty rather than latent, factor-analytic dimensions of model capability. Automated checks and human validation support data quality. Evaluations of twelve proprietary and open-weight LLMs show substantial variation in the use of evolving interaction histories; stronger chain-of-thought reasoners perform better on tasks requiring deeper inference, while uncertainty consistently degrades performance. Reasoning workflows help weaker short-chain-of-thought backbones but saturate on stronger reasoners. Finally, targeted fine-tuning on curated reasoning traces substantially improves structured social-reasoning tasks, whereas transfer to language-aggregation tasks remains statistically inconclusive. The project homepage is available at https://xzx34.github.io/socialmaze/.

This article introduces a modeling framework to characterize evacuee response to environmental stimuli during emergency egress. The model is developed in consistency with stress theory, which explains how an organism reacts to environmental stressors (e.g., alarm signals or hazardous factors such as smoke and fire). We integrate the theory into the well-known social force model, and develop a framework to simulate crowd evacuation behavior in multi-compartment buildings. Our method serves as a theoretical basis to study crowd movement at bottlenecks, and simulate their herding behavior and way-finding activities in normal and hazardous conditions. The pre-movement behavior is also investigated by using opinion dynamics with a social group model. The algorithms have been partly tested in FDS+EVAC as well as our simulation platform crowdEgress.

As people increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) for guidance in their own lives, scholars, lawyers, and even judges have begun to consider the role of AI in legal decision-making. As "silicon sampling" -- the use of generative AI models in social science research -- is now impacting academia, "silicon jurors" could make an appearance in courtrooms. This study joins an emerging line of research on generative AI models' ability to simulate human legal judgments. In particular, we study how large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots respond to series of questions about legal reasonableness. When the law needs to judge the appropriateness of a behavior, it most often asks whether the behavior was "reasonable." Yet despite the ubiquity of reasonableness judgments, they are the site of constant vexation for lawyers, judges, and lay people. Reasonableness seems inherently vague and unpredictable, since it relies on variable context and implicit conceptual schemas. Moreover, many scholars caution that reasonableness judgments may vary along demographic lines. We compare the answers of human participants to those of twenty-six LLMs across twenty-five different legally relevant reasonableness judgments. Overall, our findings suggest that chatbot responses generally track those of human participants. Nonetheless, we find some suggestive -- and potentially concerning -- results. Compared to humans, LLMs generate more homogeneous responses and occasionally treat a variable standard as an invariant rule. And, compared to humans, LLMs tend to generate answers that are more favorable to the government and to corporations. Finally, our results indicate that LLMs' responses tend to align more closely with those of respondents who are white, male, older, and more educated. More systematic research is needed to confirm or reject these initial findings.

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