← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.10641 · v1
Same Contacts, Different Rooms:Meeting Format Shapes LLM Group Influence Beyond Pairwise Contact Counts
首次提交 2026-11-07 18:30
版本更新 2026-11-07 18:30
雷达观测 2026-11-10 11:14
摘要
Simulations of LLM agent collectives usually summarise interaction as a pairwise contact network. We test that summary with a contact-matched intervention: the members, their initial stances and every pairwise contact count stay fixed while the meetings are reorganised, and each member gives a one-step support readout after reading the arguments of everyone present. Across six open-weight LLMs and 14 debate topics, merging triads into five-person meetings (resize) moves group support more than reshuffling who meets in triads (regroup), although both move the same 60 dyadic exposures. The root-mean-square change is 4.36 versus 2.59 percentage points (pp), larger for resize in all six models and in 81 of 84 model-topic cells. Resizing also has a consistent direction: it amplifies the initial majority of the merged members by 1.72 pp, in every model, whereas regrouping has no direction (<= 0.03 pp). A contact network cannot represent regrouping at all, yet pairwise rules applied meeting by meeting explain up to 76% of its effect, and with identical weights they raise resize R^2 by 0.51-0.58 for two models. We show that the gap between the two placements is an exact Jensen gap of the sigmoid readout, bounded by how much a member's predicted logits vary across meetings; this dispersion tracks the gap with log-log r=0.97 and tells a modeller when contact counts are a safe summary. Meeting format is a first-class variable for LLM social simulation.
作者备注：10 pages, 5 figures, 9 tables. Code: https://github.com/ZachGu-00/llm-meeting-format
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-07 18:30 · 最新观测版本
Same Contacts, Different Rooms:Meeting Format Shapes LLM Group Influence Beyond Pairwise Contact Counts
Simulations of LLM agent collectives usually summarise interaction as a pairwise contact network. We test that summary with a contact-matched intervention: the members, their initial stances and every pairwise contact count stay fixed while the meetings are reorganised, and each member gives a one-step support readout after reading the arguments of everyone present. Across six open-weight LLMs and 14 debate topics, merging triads into five-person meetings (resize) moves group support more than reshuffling who meets in triads (regroup), although both move the same 60 dyadic exposures. The root-mean-square change is 4.36 versus 2.59 percentage points (pp), larger for resize in all six models and in 81 of 84 model-topic cells. Resizing also has a consistent direction: it amplifies the initial majority of the merged members by 1.72 pp, in every model, whereas regrouping has no direction (<= 0.03 pp). A contact network cannot represent regrouping at all, yet pairwise rules applied meeting by meeting explain up to 76% of its effect, and with identical weights they raise resize R^2 by 0.51-0.58 for two models. We show that the gap between the two placements is an exact Jensen gap of the sigmoid readout, bounded by how much a member's predicted logits vary across meetings; this dispersion tracks the gap with log-log r=0.97 and tells a modeller when contact counts are a safe summary. Meeting format is a first-class variable for LLM social simulation.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗