Diverse Minds, Divided Networks? Personality Composition, Polarization, and Collective Intelligence in LLM-Based Social Simulations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12444v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 05:06:48 GMT
• Title: Diverse Minds, Divided Networks? Personality Composition, Polarization, and Collective Intelligence in LLM-Based Social Simulations
• Abstract summary: TraitMix is a controlled experimental variable in which polarization and collective performance are measured in the same runs.<n> Trait effects are not additive, as Agreeableness determines the sign of Openness.<n>Contrary to the trade-off the study was designed to measure, no polarization measure predicts poorer collective performance.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Simulated societies of large language model agents are used to study online polarization, and separately to study collective intelligence, but the two are rarely measured in the same system. It is therefore difficult to say whether a society's personality composition shapes both, or whether reducing polarization costs collective competence. We present TraitMix, an experimental design in which the Big Five composition of a simulated social network, both trait levels and trait heterogeneity, is a controlled experimental variable, and in which polarization and collective performance are measured in the same runs. Across 991 simulations of hundred-agent societies, spanning six contested topics and six language models, trait heterogeneity has the largest measured effects, acting in opposite directions on two faces of polarization: varied societies hold more dispersed opinions while being less segregated into camps, so homogeneous societies are not moderate but consensual echo chambers. Trait effects are not additive, as Agreeableness determines the sign of Openness, an interaction that replicates across models although the primary model's estimate is influence-driven. Contrary to the trade-off the study was designed to measure, no polarization measure predicts poorer collective performance, and cross-cutting interaction is the only one of four whose association with collective accuracy survives partialling on the aggregation identity. We report ablations removing two potential measurement circularities, an induction gate applied to every model, and the measures that failed them.

Related papers

• Persuasive and Compliant Tendencies Predict Group Decision-Making in Humans and Language Models [65.21691850622413]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with humans.<n>We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies.<n>We show that stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:50:56Z)
• Collective cooperation without individual fidelity in LLM agents [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as agents in simulations of social systems.<n>It remains unclear when their behavior can be interpreted as a faithful proxy for human decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T15:22:21Z)
• Us-vs-Them bias in Large Language Models [0.569978892646475]
  We find consistent ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations across foundational large language models.<n>For personas examined, conservative personas exhibit greater outgroup hostility, whereas liberal personas display stronger ingroup solidarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T07:11:22Z)
• To Mask or to Mirror: Human-AI Alignment in Collective Reasoning [8.009150856358755]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making.<n>We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment.<n>We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and model-specific inductive biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T11:41:30Z)
• Fairness Mediator: Neutralize Stereotype Associations to Mitigate Bias in Large Language Models [66.5536396328527]
  LLMs inadvertently absorb spurious correlations from training data, leading to stereotype associations between biased concepts and specific social groups.<n>We propose Fairness Mediator (FairMed), a bias mitigation framework that neutralizes stereotype associations.<n>Our framework comprises two main components: a stereotype association prober and an adversarial debiasing neutralizer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T14:23:06Z)
• Emergence of human-like polarization among large language model agents [79.96817421756668]
  We simulate a networked system involving thousands of large language model agents, discovering their social interactions, result in human-like polarization.<n>Similarities between humans and LLM agents raise concerns about their capacity to amplify societal polarization, but also hold the potential to serve as a valuable testbed for identifying plausible strategies to mitigate polarization and its consequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T11:45:05Z)
• Mixbiotic society measures: Assessment of community well-going as living system [0.0]
  Social isolation is caused by the impoverishment of community (atomism) and fragmentation is caused by the enlargement of in-group (mobism) This study proposes new mixbiotic society measures to evaluate dynamic communication patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T14:00:17Z)
• Flexible social inference facilitates targeted social learning when rewards are not observable [58.762004496858836]
  Groups coordinate more effectively when individuals are able to learn from others' successes. We suggest that social inference capacities may help bridge this gap, allowing individuals to update their beliefs about others' underlying knowledge and success from observable trajectories of behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-01T21:04:03Z)
• Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization? [90.35044668396591]
  A recurring theme in machine learning is algorithmic monoculture: the same systems, or systems that share components, are deployed by multiple decision-makers. We propose the component-sharing hypothesis: if decision-makers share components like training data or specific models, then they will produce more homogeneous outcomes. We test this hypothesis on algorithmic fairness benchmarks, demonstrating that sharing training data reliably exacerbates homogenization. We conclude with philosophical analyses of and societal challenges for outcome homogenization, with an eye towards implications for deployed machine learning systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T09:33:11Z)
• This Must Be the Place: Predicting Engagement of Online Communities in a Large-scale Distributed Campaign [70.69387048368849]
  We study the behavior of communities with millions of active members. We develop a hybrid model, combining textual cues, community meta-data, and structural properties. We demonstrate the applicability of our model through Reddit's r/place a large-scale online experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-14T08:23:16Z)

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.