원문 초록
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used as synthetic participants in opinion-dynamics experiments, often assuming that an agent's behaviour is fully determined by its prompt. We test this assumption with a framework in which LLM agents discuss a contested policy issue over repeated rounds while their stance is quantified by a fixed psychometric instrument independent of any dynamics model. Across six LLMs, committed personas are intrinsically stable: in each of the five models tested without peer input, every agent keeps its assigned side for 20 rounds. The observed loss of alignment under discussion is therefore interaction-induced, we call it alignment drift, and model-specific: gpt-4.1 keeps opinion clusters apart, claude-sonnet-5 holds them partially, and gpt-5.6-sol and claude-opus-5 abandon them. Under selective attention, one LLM maintains separated opinion clusters under stance-homophilous attention. Qualitative profiles persist at doubled population and horizon and on a second issue. Such heterogeneity makes the LLM choice a first-class validity variable for social simulation.
제출 이력
확인된 버전만 표시합니다. 전체 제출 이력은 arXiv 원문에서 확인하세요.
- arXiv:2611.03980v1제출 시각 미확인
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
공통 태그로 연결된 공개 논문이 아직 없습니다.
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.