Disentangling Interaction and Bias Effects in Opinion Dynamics of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06858v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 16:26:45 GMT
• Title: Disentangling Interaction and Bias Effects in Opinion Dynamics of Large Language Models
• Authors: Vincent C. Brockers, David A. Ehrlich, Viola Priesemann,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models are increasingly used to simulate human opinion dynamics.<n>We present a Bayesian framework to disentangle and quantify three such biases.<n>Applying this framework to multi-step dialogues reveals that opinion trajectories tend to quickly converge to a shared attractor.
• Score: 0.42481744176244507
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models are increasingly used to simulate human opinion dynamics, yet the effect of genuine interaction is often obscured by systematic biases. We present a Bayesian framework to disentangle and quantify three such biases: (i) a topic bias toward prior opinions in the training data; (ii) an agreement bias favoring agreement irrespective of the question; and (iii) an anchoring bias toward the initiating agent's stance. Applying this framework to multi-step dialogues reveals that opinion trajectories tend to quickly converge to a shared attractor, with the influence of the interaction fading over time, and the impact of biases differing between LLMs. In addition, we fine-tune an LLM on different sets of strongly opinionated statements (incl. misinformation) and demonstrate that the opinion attractor shifts correspondingly. Exposing stark differences between LLMs and providing quantitative tools to compare them to human subjects in the future, our approach highlights both chances and pitfalls in using LLMs as proxies for human behavior.

Related papers

• Inference-Time Reasoning Selectively Reduces Implicit Social Bias in Large Language Models [0.0]
  We study how reasoning-enabled inference affects implicit bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that enabling reasoning significantly reduces measured implicit bias on an IAT-style evaluation for some model classes across fifteen stereotype topics.<n>This work highlights how theory from cognitive science and psychology can complement AI evaluation research by providing methodological and interpretive frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T16:44:23Z)
• DEBATE: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Role-Playing LLM Agents in Multi-Agent, Long-Form Debates [10.609797175227644]
  We introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs.<n>We systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T02:21:10Z)
• Judging with Many Minds: Do More Perspectives Mean Less Prejudice? On Bias Amplifications and Resistance in Multi-Agent Based LLM-as-Judge [70.89799989428367]
  We conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias.<n>We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T03:56:41Z)
• MLLMs are Deeply Affected by Modality Bias [158.64371871084478]
  Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown promising results in integrating diverse modalities such as texts and images.<n>MLLMs are heavily influenced by modality bias, often relying on language while under-utilizing other modalities like visual inputs.<n>This paper argues that MLLMs are deeply affected by modality bias, highlighting its manifestations across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T11:49:31Z)
• Large Language Models Often Say One Thing and Do Another [49.22262396351797]
  We develop a novel evaluation benchmark called the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT)<n>The benchmark establishes a strict correspondence between word-based and deed-based questions across different domains.<n>The evaluation results reveal a widespread inconsistency between words and deeds across different LLMs and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T07:34:54Z)
• Explicit vs. Implicit: Investigating Social Bias in Large Language Models through Self-Reflection [18.625071242029936]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit various biases and stereotypes in their generated content.<n>This paper presents a systematic framework to investigate and compare explicit and implicit biases in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-04T14:08:52Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Bias in the Mirror: Are LLMs opinions robust to their own adversarial attacks ? [22.0383367888756]
  Large language models (LLMs) inherit biases from their training data and alignment processes, influencing their responses in subtle ways. We introduce a novel approach where two instances of an LLM engage in self-debate, arguing opposing viewpoints to persuade a neutral version of the model. We evaluate how firmly biases hold and whether models are susceptible to reinforcing misinformation or shifting to harmful viewpoints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T13:06:02Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• Uncovering Biases with Reflective Large Language Models [2.5200794639628032]
  Biases and errors in human-labeled data present significant challenges for machine learning. We present the Reflective LLM Dialogue Framework RLDF, which leverages structured adversarial dialogues to uncover diverse perspectives. Experiments show RLDF successfully identifies potential biases in public content while exposing limitations in human-labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T04:48:32Z)
• A Theory of Response Sampling in LLMs: Part Descriptive and Part Prescriptive [53.08398658452411]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making.<n>We show that this sampling behavior resembles that of human decision-making.<n>We show that this deviation of a sample from the statistical norm towards a prescriptive component consistently appears in concepts across diverse real-world domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.