{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2024:G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC","short_pith_number":"pith:G3UI7CX2","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"36e88f8afa86a17538187a76ee22c4c8ae3e71bcaf5585fe378bbc2563175185","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2402.04049","version":3},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Amir Taubenfeld, Ariel Goldstein, Roi Reichart, Yaniv Dover","submitted_at":"2024-02-06T14:51:55Z","abstract_excerpt":"The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), has opened exciting possibilities for constructing computational simulations designed to replicate human behavior accurately. Current research suggests that LLM-based agents become increasingly human-like in their performance, sparking interest in using these AI agents as substitutes for human participants in behavioral studies. However, LLMs are complex statistical learners without straightforward deductive rules, making them prone to unexpected behaviors. Hence, it is crucial to study and pinpoint the key behavioral distinctions between humans a"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2402.04049","kind":"arxiv","version":3},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CL","submitted_at":"2024-02-06T14:51:55Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.AI"],"title_canon_sha256":"985858c1fd4beade82f57b128a3a61e192fed474a518786596f245fbfe83d35f","abstract_canon_sha256":"6fd86db8796e46074c0954b68d3847538f28afdb6f1e7834edf5d8d3a3b5bf0f"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158798Z","signature_b64":"aU6dpeyxF85SHh1pcf4U6BRjCkmPdyPlkDFtnV1pSqi1GTCptJGbCGxTuU+nNN8OwdCFoD++Hb5NUhWzgPouAg==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"36e88f8afa86a17538187a76ee22c4c8ae3e71bcaf5585fe378bbc2563175185","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158296Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158296Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Amir Taubenfeld, Ariel Goldstein, Roi Reichart, Yaniv Dover","submitted_at":"2024-02-06T14:51:55Z","abstract_excerpt":"The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), has opened exciting possibilities for constructing computational simulations designed to replicate human behavior accurately. Current research suggests that LLM-based agents become increasingly human-like in their performance, sparking interest in using these AI agents as substitutes for human participants in behavioral studies. However, LLMs are complex statistical learners without straightforward deductive rules, making them prone to unexpected behaviors. Hence, it is crucial to study and pinpoint the key behavioral distinctions between humans a"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2402.04049","kind":"arxiv","version":3},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2402.04049/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2402.04049","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2402.04049v3","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2402.04049","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"G3UI7CX2Q2QX","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAY","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"G3UI7CX2","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":5,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2509.06858","citing_title":"Disentangling Interaction and Bias Effects in Opinion Dynamics of Large Language Models","ref_index":25,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.19141","citing_title":"GRASP: Deterministic argument ranking in interaction graphs","ref_index":60,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2404.11584","citing_title":"The Landscape of Emerging AI Agent Architectures for Reasoning, Planning, and Tool Calling: A Survey","ref_index":27,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.11312","citing_title":"Network Effects and Agreement Drift in LLM Debates","ref_index":15,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.11721","citing_title":"Evaluating Cooperation in LLM Social Groups through Elected Leadership","ref_index":7,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC","json":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/G3UI7CX2"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/G3UI7CX2","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2402.04049&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/G3UI7CX2Q2QXKOAYPJ3O4IWEZC/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T09:50:30.158358+00:00"}