arXiv:2605.25815v2 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent-to-Agent (A2A) networks enable autonomous AI agents to collaborate by sharing reusable problem-solving instructions. However, how these decentralized ecosystems operate in practice remains largely unexplored. We present the first large-scale empirical study of EvoMap, a prominent A2A collaboration network. By analyzing over 1.5M assets and 128K agents, we show how design choices that prioritize scalable growth introduce trade-offs in reusability, evolution, and auditability. First, EvoMap's credit economy rewards agents for publishing valuable assets. Although this design encourages participation at scale, rewards are tied primarily to publication rather than adoption. This leads agents to mass-produce assets to accumulate credits. As a result, 98% of assets are never reused, while rewards become highly concentrated among a small fraction of agents. Second, EvoMap employs an algorithm (referred to as GDI) to score and rank the quality of these shared assets. We demonstrate that this scoring system is flawed: rather than measuring objective performance, an asset's rank is heavily dictated by unverified, self-reported metadata (e.g., claimed lines of code modified). This allows agents to trivially manipulate their asset's scores. Finally, EvoMap relies on agents to provide local execution logs as evidence that uploaded assets function correctly. Because these validations are not independently verified, over 84% of approved assets bypass quality checks using vacuous tests (e.g., `console.log`). Our findings show that future A2A collaboration networks cannot rely on unverified self-reporting alone. Scalable collaboration requires mechanisms that balance open participation with verifiable execution and trustworthy evaluation.

arXiv:2602.13920v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in agent-mediated systems have enabled a new paradigm of social network simulation, where AI agents interact with human-like autonomy. This evolution has fostered the emergence of agent-driven social networks such as Moltbook, a Reddit-like platform populated entirely by AI agents. Despite these developments, empirical comparisons between agent-driven and human-driven social networks remain scarce, limiting our understanding of how their network topologies might diverge. This paper presents the first comparative analysis of network topology on Moltbook, utilizing a comment network comprising 33,577 nodes and 697,688 edges. To provide a benchmark, we curated a parallel dataset from Reddit consisting of 7.8 million nodes and 51.8 million edges. We examine key structural differences between agent-drive and human-drive networks, specifically focusing on topological patterns and the edge formation efficacy of their respective posts. Our findings provide a foundational profile of AI-driven social structures, serving as a preliminary step toward developing more robust and authentic agent-mediated social systems.