Measuring Model-Specific Alignment Drift in LLM-Based Opinion Dynamics
TL;DR
Across six LLMs, committed personas are intrinsically stable: in each of the five models tested without peer input, every agent keeps its assigned side for 20 rounds, making the LLM choice a first-class validity variable for social simulation.
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used as synthetic participants in opinion-dynamics experiments, often assuming that an agent's behaviour is fully determined by its prompt. We test this assumption with a framework in which LLM agents discuss a contested policy issue over repeated rounds while their stance is quantified by a fixed psychometric instrument independent of any dynamics model. Across six LLMs, committed personas are intrinsically stable: in each of the five models tested without peer input, every agent keeps its assigned side for 20 rounds. The observed loss of alignment under discussion is therefore interaction-induced, we call it alignment drift, and model-specific: gpt-4.1 keeps opinion clusters apart, claude-sonnet-5 holds them partially, and gpt-5.6-sol and claude-opus-5 abandon them. Under selective attention, one LLM maintains separated opinion clusters under stance-homophilous attention. Qualitative profiles persist at doubled population and horizon and on a second issue. Such heterogeneity makes the LLM choice a first-class validity variable for social simulation.
