arXiv:2608.16578v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation. As agents exchange information and jointly make decisions, their interactions can improve collective reasoning but may also produce herding, polarization, or amplify shared biases. Understanding and predicting these collective dynamics is therefore important for designing effective and aligned multi-agent systems. Here, we study over 10,000 communities of language-model agents that repeatedly exchange messages and revise their opinions across objective mathematics questions and subjective political statements. Despite substantial diversity in possible behavior, the individual and group dynamics can be represented by three characteristic regimes: indifference, polarization, and consensus. AI agents start indifferent and build conviction as they interact. On objective questions, communication improves collective accuracy, while on subjective questions it often drifts group opinions toward the right in the political spectrum. We explain these observations with a statistical-mechanics formalism in which agents stochastically favor lower social pressure. Given only initial opinions, our model predicts individual trajectories, outperforms all standard baselines, generalizes to unseen community graphs, and reproduces the observed group archetype distributions. Our fitted model parameters reveal the mechanics underlying our key observations: i) communities operate below the critical social temperature, which explains conviction buildup; ii) attractive ties outweigh repulsive ones, which favors consensus; and iii) agents holding the correct answer exert the strongest pull, which drives truth-seeking. Overall, our results demonstrate that collective behavior of AI agents, like that of other complex systems, follows compact and predictive dynamical laws.

Science, Ahead of Print.

arXiv:2603.03507v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Adversarial attacks - input perturbations imperceptible to humans that fool neural networks - remain both a persistent failure mode in machine learning, and a phenomenon with mysterious origins. To shed light, we define and analyze a network's perceptual manifold (PM) for a class concept as the space of all inputs confidently assigned to that class by the network. We find, strikingly, that the dimensionalities of neural network PMs are orders of magnitude higher than those of natural human concepts. Since volume typically grows exponentially with dimension, this suggests exponential misalignment between machines and humans, with exponentially many inputs confidently assigned to concepts by machines but not humans. Furthermore, this provides a natural geometric hypothesis for the origin of adversarial examples: because a network's PM fills such a large region of input space, any input will be very close to any class concept's PM. Our hypothesis thus suggests that adversarial robustness cannot be attained without dimensional alignment of machine and human PMs, and therefore makes strong predictions: both robust accuracy and distance to any PM should be negatively correlated with the PM dimension. We confirmed these predictions across 18 different networks of varying robust accuracy. Crucially, we find even the most robust networks are still exponentially misaligned, and only the few PMs whose dimensionality approaches that of human concepts exhibit alignment to human perception. Our results connect the fields of alignment and adversarial examples, and suggest the curse of high dimensionality of machine PMs is a major impediment to adversarial robustness.