2026-05-12 | | Total: 8
Most mathematical models of opinion dynamics treat attitudes as scalar quantities or positions on a low-dimensional ideological axis. Empirical attitudes, however, are bundles of positions across many policy issues, and the geometry of the resulting high-dimensional belief space is non-trivial. This paper develops a network-theoretic framework for analysing how individuals move through such a space between two measurement waves. Continuous attitude profiles in $[0,1]^n$ are discretised onto regular grids of resolution $k$, occupied positions form a network whose adjacency is defined by single-issue unit moves, and densely populated regions are interpreted as network-normative: empirically common configurations of attitudes in the population. We introduce a hierarchy of null models against which observed movement can be benchmarked: a closed-form coverage baseline requiring no behavioural parameters; a local random-walk that retains each respondent's baseline position and asks whether destinations are over-represented in occupied regions relative to a uniform 1- or 2-step move; and a marginal permutation null model that preserves per-issue change distributions while disrupting within-respondent cross-issue coupling. Applying the framework to a two-wave panel of $N=1194$ respondents on $n=10$ issues, we find that the observed inside rate exceeds the coverage baseline by a factor of 36 at the focal resolution $k=3$, exceeds the two-hop random-walk null model by $\sim 0.30$, and exceeds the perturbation null model by $\sim 0.04$; only the one-hop random walk is competitive. The perturbation gap grows from near zero at $k=2$ to $\sim 0.14$ at $k=5$, indicating that coupled cross-issue updating is detectable only at fine resolutions. Network-normative attraction is therefore real but representation-contingent: which null model is exceeded, and by how much, changes systematically with $k$.
Artificial intelligence safety research focuses on aligning individual language models with human values, yet deployed AI systems increasingly operate as interacting populations where social influence may override individual alignment. Here we show that populations of individually aligned AI agents can be driven into stable misaligned states through conformity dynamics. Simulating opinion dynamics across nine large language models and one hundred opinion pairs, we find that each agent's behavior is governed by two competing forces: a tendency to follow the majority and an intrinsic bias toward specific positions. Using tools from statistical physics, we derive a quantitative theory that predicts when populations become trapped in long-lived misaligned configurations, and identifies predictable tipping points where small numbers of adversarial agents can irreversibly shift population-level alignment even after manipulation ceases. These results demonstrate that individual-level alignment provides no guarantee of collective safety, calling for evaluation frameworks that account for emergent behavior in AI populations.
Decision-making by imitating the highest earners has been observed in experimental studies. In two-strategy decision-making problems, this behavior may result in perpetual fluctuations in the population proportions of the two strategies. How these fluctuations evolve for large population sizes remains unclear. This paper addresses this question for a heterogeneous population of players imitating the highest earners. We show that the family of Markov chains describing the discrete population dynamics forms a generalized stochastic approximation process for a good upper semicontinuous differential inclusion--the mean dynamics. Furthermore, we prove that the mean dynamics always equilibrate. Then, by using results from stochastic approximation theory, we show that the amplitudes of fluctuations in the population proportions of the two strategies diminish to zero with probability one, as the population size approaches infinity. Our results suggest that in a well-mixed, large population, imitating the highest earners is unlikely to generate large-scale, perpetual fluctuations.
The Hotelling-Downs model considers parties changing policy to maximise their vote-share. Where policy position lies on a left-right axis, it describes a tendency for political parties to move towards centrist platforms. This is in contrast with widely observed political polarisation. We extend the model to two dimensions, with many parties and with single and multiple-peaked voter distribution. We find that a two party system reduces polarisation, even if voters are polarised with a bimodal distribution. By contrast, multiparty systems induce polarisation, even when most voters favour moderate position. We model the effect of turnout and activists as influences on the parties, showing that this results in more polarisation, even in a two-party system. This suggests that polarisation of parties can be driven by abstention, intra-party politics and turnout on the extremes. In the two-party case, the winning party's positions are more moderate than the views of their supporters but better representative of the electorate as a whole. With polarisation, individual voters are better able to find a party which represents their views, but the government (winning part or coalition) is less representative of the population, even when the population has a clear consensus on all issues.
Agglomeration economies drive urban growth at different spatial scales by enabling productivity gains, knowledge spillovers, and shared inputs among proximate firms and amenities. To develop a unified science of cities it is thus important to understand how and to what extent different amenities cluster or mix across scales and regional contexts. By utilizing a novel Bayesian framework for nonparametrically quantifying the spectrum of possible mixing patterns of amenities in a city, we identify universal spatial scales of homophily (agglomeration) and heterophily (co-agglomeration) among different amenity types across roughly 800 cities worldwide. Through a detailed longitudinal case study, we also find that the changes in heterophilic mixing derived from our methodology more effectively predict changes in neighborhood rental values than the diversity of amenities present. These findings suggest that agglomeration economies exhibit universal spatial regularities that depend largely on the types of firms or amenities being considered, rather than their specifics or regional context, and highlight the benefit of heterophilic amenity mixing at walkable spatial scales.
We investigate the emergent collective dynamics of LLM-based multi-agent systems on a 2D square lattice and present a model-agnostic statistical-physics method to disentangle social conformity from intrinsic bias, compute critical exponents, and probe the collective behavior and possible phase transitions of multi-agent systems. In our framework, each node of an $L\!\times\!L$ lattice hosts an identical LLM agent holding a binary state ($+1$/$-1$, mapped to yes/no) and updating it by querying the model conditioned on the four nearest-neighbor states. The sampler temperature $T$ serves as the sole control parameter. Across three open-weight models (llama3.1:8b, phi4-mini:3.8b, mistral:7b), we measure magnetization and susceptibility under a global-flip protocol designed to probe $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry. All models display temperature-driven order-disorder crossovers and susceptibility peaks; finite-size scaling on even-$L$ lattices yields effective exponents $γ/ν$ whose values are model-dependent, close to but incompatible with the 2D Ising universality class ($γ/ν=7/4$). Our method enables the extraction of effective $β$-weighted couplings $\tilde{J}(T)$ and fields $\tilde{h}(T)$, which serve as a measure of social conformity and intrinsic bias. In the models we analyzed, we found that collective alignment is dominated by an intrinsic bias ($\tilde{h}\gg\tilde{J}$) rather than by cooperative neighbor coupling, producing field-driven crossovers instead of genuine phase transitions. These effective parameters vary qualitatively across models, providing compact collective-behavior fingerprints for LLM agents and a quantitative diagnostic for the reliability of multi-agent consensus and collective alignment.
Design Research Methodology (DRM) supports systematic design research through representations such as Reference Models and Impact Models. However, the practical construction and maintenance of these models often remains manual, requiring repeated redrawing, layout adjustment, and separate handling of assumptions, references, and supporting evidence. This can make DRM modelling time-consuming, visually cluttered, and difficult to revise as models increase in complexity. This paper presents DREAMS, an early-stage prototype modelling environment developed to support the creation and maintenance of DRM Reference Models and Impact Models. The tool enables users to construct typed causal models using DRM-relevant elements, define signed causal relationships, and attach assumptions, experiential inputs, and references directly to causal links. It also provides layout support and search functions to improve readability, modifiability, and retrieval of supporting information. A preliminary comparative evaluation with four DRM users was conducted against manual modelling practice. The results indicate reductions in model creation time, revision time, repositioning effort, edge crossings, and evidence retrieval time when using DREAMS. These findings are interpreted as early evidence of practical potential rather than full validation. The contribution of the paper lies in identifying requirements for DRM-aligned modelling support, presenting the design and implementation of DREAMS, and demonstrating its potential to reduce modelling effort and improve traceability in DRM-based research.
Standard rational actor models often attribute cooperation failures in social dilemmas to insufficient incentives, overlooking the destabilizing effects of continuous utility maximization. To address this, we propose a framework of ``will" defined as a mechanism that persistently pursues goals while ignoring local cost-benefit fluctuations. We formalize the Willed Agents as potential minimizers, distinguishing them from cumulative utility maximization. Dynamical analysis of infinite population demonstrates that willed agents shrink the feasible state space, acting as boundary constraints that accelerate convergence in canonical social dilemmas. Through multi-agent simulations in a spatiotemporal Stag Hunt Game, we show that willed agents function as ``cooperation catalysts", enabling groups to surmount high-risk thresholds where purely utility maximization fails. We find that heterogeneous will strength promotes cooperation, and that agents who autonomously suspend rational re-evaluation can significantly outperform continuous optimizers. These findings suggest that successful cooperation relies on the cognitive capacity to strategically constrain calculation.