CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 7Complex Network Analysis TechniquesOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis

Emergence of Scale-Free Networks in Social Interactions among Large Language Models

Open access
De Marzo, Giordano, Pietronero, Luciano, Garcia, David·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2312.06619arXiv 2312.06619
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scale-free networks are one of the most famous examples of emergent behavior and are ubiquitous in social systems, especially online social media in which users can follow each other. By analyzing the interactions of multiple generative agents using GPT3.5-turbo as a language model, we demonstrate their ability to not only mimic individual human linguistic behavior but also exhibit collective phenomena intrinsic to human societies, in particular the emergence of scale-free networks. We discovered that this process is disrupted by a skewed token prior distribution of GPT3.5-turbo, which can lead to networks with extreme centralization as a kind of alignment. We show how renaming agents removes these token priors and allows the model to generate a range of networks from random networks to more realistic scale-free networks.

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.2312.06619

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • LLM-driven populations display spontaneous emergent behaviours akin to human societies, such as scale-free networks, information diffusion, and social conventions through interactions.

    “LLM-driven populations display spontaneous emergent behaviours akin to human societies, such as scale-free networks [26], information diffusion [27], and social conventions through interactions [28].”

    From Selective agreement, not sycophancy: investigating opinion dynamics in LLM interactions (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. S. Bubeck, V. Chandrasekaran, R. Eldan, J. Gehrke, E. Horvitz, E. Kamar, P. Lee, Y. T. Lee, Y. Li, S. Lund- berg, et al., Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023). · arXiv
  2. Y. Chang, X. Wang, J. Wang, Y. Wu, K. Zhu, H. Chen, L. Yang, X. Yi, C. Wang, Y. Wang, et al., A survey on evaluation of large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03109 (2023). · arXiv
  3. F. F. Xu, U. Alon, G. Neubig, and V. J. Hellendoorn, A systematic evaluation of large language models of code, in Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGPLAN International Sym- posium on Machine Programming (2022) pp. 1-10.
  4. K. Valmeekam, A. Olmo, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambham- pati, Large language models still can't plan (a benchmark for llms on planning and reasoning about change), arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10498 (2022). · arXiv
  5. B. J. Jansen, S.-g. Jung, and J. Salminen, Employing large language models in survey research, Natural Language Pro- cessing Journal 4, 100020 (2023).
  6. J. S. Park, L. Popowski, C. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein, Social simulacra: Creating populated prototypes for social computing systems, in Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Soft- ware and Technology (2022) pp. 1-18.
  7. A. J. Thirunavukarasu, D. S. J. Ting, K. Elangovan, L. Gutierrez, T. F. Tan, and D. S. W. Ting, Large language models in medicine, Nature medicine 29, 1930 (2023).
  8. M. Abdulhai, G. Serapio-Garcia, C. Crepy, D. Valter, J. Canny, and N. Jaques, Moral foundations of large lan- guage models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15337 (2023). · arXiv
  9. K. Singhal, S. Azizi, T. Tu, S. S. Mahdavi, J. Wei, H. W. Chung, N. Scales, A. Tanwani, H. Cole-Lewis, S. Pfohl, et al., Large language models encode clinical knowledge, Nature 620, 172 (2023).
  10. M. C. Frank, Baby steps in evaluating the capacities of large language models, Nature Reviews Psychology 2, 451 (2023).
  11. T. Webb, K. J. Holyoak, and H. Lu, Emergent analogi- cal reasoning in large language models, Nature Human Be- haviour 7, 1526 (2023).
  12. G. Betz, Natural-language multi-agent simulations of argu- mentative opinion dynamics, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 25 (2022).
  13. P. Törnberg, D. Valeeva, J. Uitermark, and C. Bail, Simulating social media using large language models to evaluate alternative news feed algorithms, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05984 (2023). · arXiv
  14. I. Grossmann, M. Feinberg, D. C. Parker, N. A. Christakis, P. E. Tetlock, and W. A. Cunningham, Ai and the transfor- mation of social science research, Science 380, 1108 (2023).
  15. P. W. Anderson, More is different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science., Science 177, 393 (1972).
  16. J. S. Park, J. O'Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein, Generative agents: Interactive simu- lacra of human behavior, in Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technol- ogy (2023) pp. 1-22.
  17. H. Zhang, W. Du, J. Shan, Q. Zhou, Y. Du, J. B. Tenen- baum, T. Shu, and C. Gan, Building cooperative embod- ied agents modularly with large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02485 (2023). · arXiv
  18. A. Capocci, V. D. Servedio, F. Colaiori, L. S. Buriol, D. Do- nato, S. Leonardi, and G. Caldarelli, Preferential attach- ment in the growth of social networks: The internet ency- clopedia wikipedia, Physical review E 74, 036116 (2006).
  19. R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Epidemic spread- ing in scale-free networks, Physical review letters 86, 3200 (2001).
  20. S.-Y. Teng, M.-Y. Yeh, and K.-T. Chuang, Toward under- standing the mobile social properties: an analysis on in- stagram photo-sharing network, in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in So- cial Networks Analysis and Mining 2015 (2015) pp. 266- 269.
  21. S. Aparicio, J. Villazón-Terrazas, and G. Álvarez, A model for scale-free networks: application to twitter, Entropy 17, 5848 (2015).
  22. J. Luo, Analyzing character and consciousness in ai- generated social content: A case study of chirper, the ai social network, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08614 (2023). · arXiv
  23. A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in ran- dom networks, science 286, 509 (1999).
  24. L. Pietronero, E. Tosatti, V. Tosatti, and A. Vespignani, Explaining the uneven distribution of numbers in nature: the laws of benford and zipf, Physica A: Statistical Me- chanics and its Applications 293, 297 (2001).
  25. G. De Marzo, A. Gabrielli, A. Zaccaria, and L. Pietronero, Dynamical approach to zipf's law, Physical Review Re- search 3, 013084 (2021).
  26. S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, and A. N. Samukhin, Structure of growing networks with preferential linking, Physical review letters 85, 4633 (2000).
  27. A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. Newman, Power- law distributions in empirical data, SIAM review 51, 661 (2009).
  28. J. Alstott, E. Bullmore, and D. Plenz, powerlaw: a python package for analysis of heavy-tailed distributions, PloS one 9, e85777 (2014).
  29. M. E. Newman, Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks, Physical review E 64, 025102 (2001).
  30. R. Williams, N. Hosseinichimeh, A. Majumdar, and N. Ghaffarzadegan, Epidemic modeling with generative agents, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04986 (2023). · arXiv
  31. E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?, in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and trans- parency (2021) pp. 610-623.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
De Marzo, G., Pietronero, L., & Garcia, D.
Affiliations
Centro Ricerche Enrico Fermi (IT)
ORCID
Pietronero, Luciano
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2312.06619
arXiv
2312.06619
OpenAlex
W4389650052
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
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 › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Keywords
scale-free networks, emergent behavior, large language models, GPT-3.5-turbo, generative AI agents, social interaction, network centralization, collective phenomena, social media

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