Interactional Fairness in LLM Multi-Agent Systems: An Evaluation Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12001v1
• Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 13:24:13 GMT
• Title: Interactional Fairness in LLM Multi-Agent Systems: An Evaluation Framework
• Authors: Ruta Binkyte,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a novel framework for evaluating Interactional fairness encompassing Interpersonal fairness (IF) and Informational fairness (InfF) in multi-agent systems.<n>We validate our framework through a pilot study using controlled simulations of a resource negotiation task.<n>Results show that tone and justification quality significantly affect acceptance decisions even when objective outcomes are held constant.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, questions of fairness should extend beyond resource distribution and procedural design to include the fairness of how agents communicate. Drawing from organizational psychology, we introduce a novel framework for evaluating Interactional fairness encompassing Interpersonal fairness (IF) and Informational fairness (InfF) in LLM-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS). We extend the theoretical grounding of Interactional Fairness to non-sentient agents, reframing fairness as a socially interpretable signal rather than a subjective experience. We then adapt established tools from organizational justice research, including Colquitt's Organizational Justice Scale and the Critical Incident Technique, to measure fairness as a behavioral property of agent interaction. We validate our framework through a pilot study using controlled simulations of a resource negotiation task. We systematically manipulate tone, explanation quality, outcome inequality, and task framing (collaborative vs. competitive) to assess how IF influences agent behavior. Results show that tone and justification quality significantly affect acceptance decisions even when objective outcomes are held constant. In addition, the influence of IF vs. InfF varies with context. This work lays the foundation for fairness auditing and norm-sensitive alignment in LLM-MAS.

Related papers

• Corrupted by Reasoning: Reasoning Language Models Become Free-Riders in Public Goods Games [87.5673042805229]
  How large language models balance self-interest and collective well-being is a critical challenge for ensuring alignment, robustness, and safe deployment.<n>We adapt a public goods game with institutional choice from behavioral economics, allowing us to observe how different LLMs navigate social dilemmas.<n>Surprisingly, we find that reasoning LLMs, such as the o1 series, struggle significantly with cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T15:02:47Z)
• The Other Side of the Coin: Exploring Fairness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [73.16564415490113]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant document from external knowledge sources.<n>We propose two approaches, FairFT and FairFilter, to mitigate the fairness issues introduced by RAG for small-scale LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T10:17:10Z)
• MALIBU Benchmark: Multi-Agent LLM Implicit Bias Uncovered [2.8692611791027893]
  We present MALIBU, a novel benchmark developed to assess the degree to which multi-agent systems implicitly reinforce social biases and stereotypes.<n>Our study quantifies biases in LLM-generated outputs, revealing that bias mitigation may favor marginalized personas over true neutrality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T19:16:40Z)
• Fairness Mediator: Neutralize Stereotype Associations to Mitigate Bias in Large Language Models [66.5536396328527]
  LLMs inadvertently absorb spurious correlations from training data, leading to stereotype associations between biased concepts and specific social groups.<n>We propose Fairness Mediator (FairMed), a bias mitigation framework that neutralizes stereotype associations.<n>Our framework comprises two main components: a stereotype association prober and an adversarial debiasing neutralizer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T14:23:06Z)
• Collaborative Value Function Estimation Under Model Mismatch: A Federated Temporal Difference Analysis [55.13545823385091]
  Federated reinforcement learning (FedRL) enables collaborative learning while preserving data privacy by preventing direct data exchange between agents.<n>In real-world applications, each agent may experience slightly different transition dynamics, leading to inherent model mismatches.<n>We show that even moderate levels of information sharing can significantly mitigate environment-specific errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T18:06:28Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Fairness in Reinforcement Learning with Bisimulation Metrics [45.674943127750595]
  By maximizing their reward without consideration of fairness, AI agents can introduce disparities in their treatment of groups or individuals.<n>We propose a novel approach that leverages bisimulation metrics to learn reward functions and observation dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-22T18:23:06Z)
• Using Protected Attributes to Consider Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems [7.061167083587786]
  Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) depends on various factors, including the system's governing rules, the behaviour of the agents, and their characteristics. We take inspiration from the work on algorithmic fairness, which addresses bias in machine learning-based decision-making. We adapt fairness metrics from the algorithmic fairness literature to the multi-agent setting, where self-interested agents interact within an environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T08:12:01Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Few-Shot Fairness: Unveiling LLM's Potential for Fairness-Aware Classification [7.696798306913988]
  We introduce a framework outlining fairness regulations aligned with various fairness definitions. We explore the configuration for in-context learning and the procedure for selecting in-context demonstrations using RAG. Experiments conducted with different LLMs indicate that GPT-4 delivers superior results in terms of both accuracy and fairness compared to other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T17:29:27Z)
• Learning Fair Classifiers via Min-Max F-divergence Regularization [13.81078324883519]
  We introduce a novel min-max F-divergence regularization framework for learning fair classification models. We show that F-divergence measures possess convexity and differentiability properties. We show that the proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance with respect to the trade-off between accuracy and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-28T20:42:04Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.