CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSimulation Techniques and Applications

S$^3$: Social-network Simulation System with Large Language Model-Empowered Agents

Open access
Gao, Chen, Lan, Xiaochong, Lu, Zhihong, Mao, Jinzhu, Piao, Jinghua, Wang, Huandong, Jin, Depeng, Li, Yong·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2307.14984arXiv 2307.14984
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Social network simulation plays a crucial role in addressing various challenges within social science. It offers extensive applications such as state prediction, phenomena explanation, and policy-making support, among others. In this work, we harness the formidable human-like capabilities exhibited by large language models (LLMs) in sensing, reasoning, and behaving, and utilize these qualities to construct the S$^3$ system (short for $\textbf{S}$ocial network $\textbf{S}$imulation $\textbf{S}$ystem). Adhering to the widely employed agent-based simulation paradigm, we employ prompt engineering and prompt tuning techniques to ensure that the agent's behavior closely emulates that of a genuine human within the social network. Specifically, we simulate three pivotal aspects: emotion, attitude, and interaction behaviors. By endowing the agent in the system with the ability to perceive the informational environment and emulate human actions, we observe the emergence of population-level phenomena, including the propagation of information, attitudes, and emotions. We conduct an evaluation encompassing two levels of simulation, employing real-world social network data. Encouragingly, the results demonstrate promising accuracy. This work represents an initial step in the realm of social network simulation empowered by LLM-based agents. We anticipate that our endeavors will serve as a source of inspiration for the development of simulation systems within, but not limited to, social science.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2307.14984

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior large-scale simulations were restricted; for instance, social networks of up to 18,000 personas were simulated.

    “For example, (40) and (10) simulated social networks of up to 18,000 personas.”

    From Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 10

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Gati V Aher, Rosa I Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans and replicate human subject studies. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 337-371. PMLR, 2023.
  2. Robert Axelrod. Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In Simulating social phenomena, pages 21-40. Springer, 1997.
  3. Fabian Baumann, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Igor M Sokolov, and Michele Starnini. Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. Physical Review Letters, 124(4):048301, 2020.
  4. Fabian Baumann, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Igor M Sokolov, and Michele Starnini. Emer- gence of polarized ideological opinions in multidimensional topic spaces. Physical Review X, 11(1):011012, 2021.
  5. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  6. Gary Charness and Matthew Rabin. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The quarterly journal of economics, 117(3):817-869, 2002.
  7. Bastien Chopard and Michel Droz. Cellular automata. Modelling of Physical, pages 6-13, 1998.
  8. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311, 2022. · arXiv
  9. Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. GLM: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  10. James Flamino, Alessandro Galeazzi, Stuart Feldman, Michael W Macy, Brendan Cross, Zhenkun Zhou, Matteo Serafino, Alexandre Bovet, Hernán A Makse, and Boleslaw K Szyman- ski. Political polarization of news media and influencers on twitter in the 2016 and 2020 us presidential elections. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1-13, 2023.
  11. Jay W Forrester. System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. In A systems-based approach to policymaking, pages 199-240. Springer, 1993.
  12. Nigel Gilbert and Klaus Troitzsch. Simulation for the social scientist. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2005.
  13. Perttu Hämäläinen, Mikke Tavast, and Anton Kunnari. Evaluating large language models in generating synthetic hci research data: a case study. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-19, 2023.
  14. Lik-Hang Lee, Tristan Braud, Pengyuan Zhou, Lin Wang, Dianlei Xu, Zijun Lin, Abhishek Kumar, Carlos Bermejo, and Pan Hui. All one needs to know about metaverse: A complete survey on technological singularity, virtual ecosystem, and research agenda. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05352, 2021. · arXiv
  15. Jiazhen Liu, Shengda Huang, Nathaniel M Aden, Neil F Johnson, and Chaoming Song. Emer- gence of polarization in coevolving networks. Physical Review Letters, 130(3):037401, 2023.
  16. Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. P- tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning across scales and tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 61-68, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  17. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Lisa Oswald, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ralph Hertwig. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature human behaviour, 7(1):74-101, 2023.
  18. Stefan Luding. Information propagation. Nature, 435(7039):159-160, 2005.
  19. Lawrence C Marsh and Meredith Scovill. Using system dynamics to model the social security system. In NBER Workshop on Policy Analysis with Social Security Research Files, pages 15-17, 1978.
  20. Dennis L Meadows, William W Behrens, Donella H Meadows, Roger F Naill, Jørgen Randers, and Erich Zahn. Dynamics of growth in a finite world. Wright-Allen Press Cambridge, MA, 1974.
  21. Daniele Notarmuzi, Claudio Castellano, Alessandro Flammini, Dario Mazzilli, and Filippo Radicchi. Universality, criticality and complexity of information propagation in social media. Nature communications, 13(1):1308, 2022.
  22. Joon Sung Park, Joseph C O'Brien, Carrie J Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Jiezhong Qiu, Jian Tang, Hao Ma, Yuxiao Dong, Kuansan Wang, and Jie Tang. Deepinf: Social influence prediction with deep learning. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '18, page 2110-2119, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery.
  24. William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1:7-59, 1988.
  25. Fernando P Santos, Yphtach Lelkes, and Simon A Levin. Link recommendation algorithms and dynamics of polarization in online social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(50):e2102141118, 2021.
  26. Joseph A Schafer. Spinning the web of hate: Web-based hate propagation by extremist organizations. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 2002.
  27. Jonathan Schler, Moshe Koppel, Shlomo Argamon, and James W Pennebaker. Effects of age and gender on blogging. In AAAI spring symposium: Computational approaches to analyzing weblogs, volume 6, pages 199-205, 2006.
  28. Peter D Spencer. The effect of oil discoveries on the british economy-theoretical ambiguities and the consistent expectations simulation approach. The Economic Journal, 94(375):633-644, 1984.
  29. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timo- thée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv
  30. Klaus G Troitzsch. Social science microsimulation. Springer Science & Business Media, 1996.
  31. Jianghao Wang, Yichun Fan, Juan Palacios, Yuchen Chai, Nicolas Guetta-Jeanrenaud, Nick Obradovich, Chenghu Zhou, and Siqi Zheng. Global evidence of expressed sentiment alterations during the covid-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(3):349-358, 2022.
  32. Jiarong Xie, Fanhui Meng, Jiachen Sun, Xiao Ma, Gang Yan, and Yanqing Hu. Detecting and modelling real percolation and phase transitions of information on social media. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(9):1161-1168, 2021.
  33. Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, et al. Glm-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02414, 2022. · arXiv
  34. Jing Zhang, Jie Tang, Juanzi Li, Yang Liu, and Chunxiao Xing. Who influenced you? predicting retweet via social influence locality. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 9(3), apr 2015.

Authors
Gao, C., Lan, X., Lu, Z., Mao, J., Piao, J., Wang, H., Jin, D., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
Tsinghua University (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2307.14984
arXiv
2307.14984
OpenAlex
W4385374144
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Simulation Techniques and Applications
Keywords
social network simulation, large language models, LLM agents, agent-based modeling, prompt engineering, prompt tuning, attitude propagation, information dissemination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review