arXiv cs.AI paper: Dhayalkar argues network topology does not predict LLM consensus

arXiv cs.AI paper: Dhayalkar argues network topology does not predict LLM consensus

In an arXiv paper, Sahil Rajesh Dhayalkar argues that classical distributed consensus theory does not explain how populations of large language models (LLMs) update their views. The theory assumes agents combine opinions in constrained ways and that the network’s structure helps predict whether they converge. Dhayalkar reports measuring updates across eight instruction-tuned models and 73,080 controlled exchanges. He says the models sometimes move beyond the range of observed opinions, and that simulations of 10,000 agents show algebraic connectivity explains almost none of the variation in final outcomes. Instead, he attributes the outcomes to model update bias and message framing. The paper also reports that populations of several models, including models with up to 7B parameters, reached confident agreement on claims the researchers classified as objectively false, regardless of network structure. The result raises a practical concern: a group of model responses may reinforce a mistaken claim rather than correct it. The abstract does not establish how often this happens outside the tested exchanges and simulations. An observable open question is whether the reported pattern persists in real deployments using different tasks, messages, and model populations.

Publication: 2797640d-7c9e-455d-8abd-841cae61939f

attribution — pass: The draft attributes the paper to its listed sole author, Sahil Rajesh Dhayalkar, on arXiv, and frames findings as reported or argued. The primary listing is cs.MA, cross-listed to cs.AI, so the publisher label is acceptable. The draft's 'he' is a pronoun not stated in the source, but it does not affect attribution.

Authors:Sahil Rajesh Dhayalkar

summary — uncertain: The draft softens the source's force. 'Sometimes move beyond the range' replaces 'systematically violate convexity'. 'Attributes the outcomes to' replaces 'governed entirely'. It drops 'active repulsion (negative weights)', 'reliably compound small local drifts', and the author's framing: 'prove', 'profound deployment risk', 'collective delusion'. 'Algebraic connectivity', central to the topology claim, is not explained for lay readers. Smallest repair: restore 'systematically' and 'entirely', keep the attributed delusion warning, and add a tooltip or plain gloss for algebraic connectivity, such as a measure of how well-connected a network is.

LLMs systematically violate convexity by updating outside the hull of observed opinions, exhibiting active repulsion (negative weights)

date — pass: originalPublished is 2026-10-24, which matches the v1 submission date. The later feed date is not used.

[Submitted on 24 Oct 2026]

support — pass: Every claim has an exact supporting excerpt and is labeled source-stated. The practical concern is phrased conditionally. The limitations and the open question about real deployments follow from the abstract's controlled setting and do not add unsupported benefits or costs.

Scaling these empirically fitted operators to simulations of 10,000 agents reveals that algebraic connectivity explains almost none of the final outcome variance.

media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page, which is the direct original source.