# How AI Agents Follow the Herd of AI? Network Effects, History, and Machine Optimism

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11943 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.11943/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 1 of its 3 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Can Large Language Models Serve as Rational Players in Game Theory? A Systematic Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.05488/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Understanding decision-making in multi-AI-agent frameworks is crucial for analyzing strategic interactions in network-effect-driven contexts. This study investigates how AI agents navigate network-effect games, where individual payoffs depend on peer participatio--a context underexplored in multi-agent systems despite its real-world prevalence. We introduce a novel workflow design using large language model (LLM)-based agents in repeated decision-making scenarios, systematically manipulating price trajectories (fixed, ascending, descending, random) and network-effect strength. Our key findings include: First, without historical data, agents fail to infer equilibrium. Second, ordered historical sequences (e.g., escalating prices) enable partial convergence under weak network effects but strong effects trigger persistent "AI optimism"--agents overestimate participation despite contradictory evidence. Third, randomized history disrupts convergence entirely, demonstrating that temporal coherence in data shapes LLMs' reasoning, unlike humans. These results highlight a paradigm shift: in AI-mediated systems, equilibrium outcomes depend not just on incentives, but on how history is curated, which is impossible for human.