Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Social Influence and the Allocation of Scientific Attention in AI Populations

Summary

A new arXiv paper transplants the Music Lab social-influence design into a market for academic attention. In one experiment, 1,000 AI agents chose among all 114 regular research articles published in the American Economic Review in 2025; agents who could see earlier choices in their community picked 17.2 percent fewer papers each, concentrated their selections more heavily, and collectively covered only 73 papers versus 90 under independent choice. A second experiment found that randomly assigning papers five initial selections lifted their subsequent selection rate by 45.55 percentage points.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Maxim Chupilkin
Social Influence and the Allocation of Scientific Attention in AI Populations
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 18 Sep 2026]

Title:Social Influence and the Allocation of Scientific Attention in AI Populations

View a PDF of the paper titled Social Influence and the Allocation of Scientific Attention in AI Populations, by Maxim Chupilkin

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:AI systems are becoming participants in the evaluation and use of scientific research. They encounter citation counts, download statistics and lists of popular articles developed around human readers, but the collective consequences of these signals for artificial readers remain uncertain. This paper adapts the Music Lab design to a market for academic attention. In the first experiment, 1,000 AI agents choose papers from the titles and abstracts of all 114 regular research articles published in the American Economic Review in 2025. The experiment has five independent-choice communities and five social-influence communities, each with 100 sequential agents. Only agents in the social-influence condition observe earlier selections within their community. Agents may select any number of papers. Social-information communities select 17.2 percent fewer papers per agent, concentrate their choices more heavily, and collectively cover 73 papers, compared with 90 independently. Between-community variation is greater under social information. In a second experiment with 200 agents across twenty social communities, randomly assigning papers five initial selections raises their subsequent selection rate by 45.55 percentage points (95% CI: 41.20 to 49.90). Choices have modest correspondence with external citations and little correspondence with download counts. The results show how a simple information rule shapes the volume, breadth and distribution of scientific attention in an artificial population.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); General Economics (econ.GN)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.22408 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.22408v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.22408

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Maxim Chupilkin [view email] [v1] Fri, 18 Sep 2026 16:28:41 UTC (291 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Social Influence and the Allocation of Scientific Attention in AI Populations, by Maxim Chupilkin

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs econ econ.GN q-fin q-fin.EC

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • Design: 1,000 AI agents split into five independent-choice and five social-influence communities of 100 sequential agents each, with only the latter able to see earlier selections within their community.
  • Under social information, agents selected 17.2 percent fewer papers per agent, concentrated choices more heavily, and covered 73 papers collectively versus 90 independently, with greater between-community variation.
  • In a second experiment with 200 agents across twenty social communities, randomly assigning papers five initial selections raised their subsequent selection rate by 45.55 percentage points (95% CI: 41.20 to 49.90).
  • Agent choices showed only modest correspondence with external citations and little correspondence with download counts.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.