arXiv subjects

Fengli Xu

Publications and source records attributed to Fengli Xu.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Emergence of polarization in networks of large language model agents

Rapid advances in large language models (LLMs) have not only empowered autonomous agents to generate social networks, communicate, and form shared and diverging opinions on political issues, but have also begun to play a growing role in shaping human political deliberation. Our understanding of their collective behaviours and underlying mechanisms remains incomplete, however, posing unexpected risks to human society. In this paper, we simulate networked systems involving thousands of LLM agents across different backbone models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, ChatGLM, Llama-3, and DeepSeek-V3), in which agents interact through LLM-guided conversations and update their opinions over time, resulting in the emergence of opinion polarization. We discover that these agents spontaneously develop their own social network with properties characteristic of human social networks, including homophilic clustering. The collective opinions of these LLM agents evolve in ways that exhibit behavioural patterns consistent with social phenomena and mechanisms widely discussed in studies of human behaviour. Overall, these behaviours, patterns, and emergent phenomena produced by LLM agents are consistent with real-world observations and established opinion-dynamics models. This consistency suggests that LLM agents can serve as a valuable synthetic testbed for exploring hypothetical intervention strategies in networked LLM-agent systems.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Answer Probing-Guided Search for Diverse Solution Exploration of LLMs

Generating multiple diverse and high-quality solutions is valuable for many applications, such as code-test generation and drug discovery. However, Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to converge on a single high-confidence solution during inference, limiting exploration of alternative valid solution paths. Existing test-time methods promote diversity through tree-like search and prune semantically similar branches using response-level semantic embeddings. However, we find that such embeddings are easily confounded by linguistic and stylistic similarities, making it difficult to distinguish genuinely distinct solution paths. To address this, we introduce Answer Probing, which probes the potential answer an LLM would reach from an intermediate reasoning path. We demonstrate that the hidden states of probed answers more effectively differentiate distinct solution paths than semantic embeddings, and the perplexity of probed answers serves as a practical proxy for reasoning correctness. Based on these findings, we propose Answer Probing-Guided Tree Search (APTS), which guides the tree search by the probed answers' hidden state similarity and perplexity. Experiments on three reasoning tasks across two LLMs show that APTS consistently enhances solution diversity, demonstrating its effectiveness and robustness.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Ideation Arena: Evaluating LLM Generated Research Ideas with Battle-style Human Expert Assessment

Evaluating research ideas generated by LLMs is difficult because their scientific value cannot be fully determined by objective criteria, and no single reference answer specifies what counts as a good idea. To address this challenge, we introduce Ideation Arena, a battle style platform that evaluates research ideas through pairwise human assessment. Ideation Arena evaluates ideas generated by 14 frontier LLMs and 5 research agent architectures built on 2 base models. To ensure a common starting point, Ideation Arena builds shared literature contexts from papers familiar to the participating researchers and provides the same contexts to all LLMs and agents. We collect over 6,000 double blind pairwise comparisons from 105 active computer science researchers and construct an Elo rating leaderboard of proposal-stage expert preferences in computer science under a shared closed-context protocol. We validate the rankings through interrater agreement and robustness analyses, showing that the leaderboard remains stable under changes in annotator composition and domain coverage. Our results show substantial variation in agent effectiveness, with some frameworks improving ideation quality over their backbones and others offering little benefit or even underperforming their base models. We further construct Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark for assessing whether automated evaluators align with human preferences in research ideation. Experiments with current LLM judges show that they still cannot reliably reproduce expert preferences, with the best judge reaching 72.56% Soft Accuracy on Overall Quality. Our code, data, and leaderboards are available at https://github.com/foss12138/Research-Ideation-Arena.

cs.AI↗