An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01332v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 05:22:29 GMT
• Title: An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems
• Authors: Min Choi, Keonwoo Kim, Sungwon Chae, Sangyeob Baek,
• Abstract summary: This study explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) agents shape public opinion through debates on five contentious topics.<n>By simulating over 2,500 debates, we analyze how initially neutral agents, assigned a centrist disposition, adopt specific stances over time.
• Score: 0.26999000177990923
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled multi-agent systems that simulate real-world interactions with near-human reasoning. While previous studies have extensively examined biases related to protected attributes such as race, the emergence and propagation of biases on socially contentious issues in multi-agent LLM interactions remain underexplored. This study explores how LLM agents shape public opinion through debates on five contentious topics. By simulating over 2,500 debates, we analyze how initially neutral agents, assigned a centrist disposition, adopt specific stances over time. Statistical analyses reveal significant group conformity mirroring human behavior; LLM agents tend to align with numerically dominant groups or more intelligent agents, exerting a greater influence. These findings underscore the crucial role of agent intelligence in shaping discourse and highlight the risks of bias amplification in online interactions. Our results emphasize the need for policy measures that promote diversity and transparency in LLM-generated discussions to mitigate the risks of bias propagation within anonymous online environments.

Related papers

• Recognising, Anticipating, and Mitigating LLM Pollution of Online Behavioural Research [20.76449931945918]
  We identify three interacting variants through which LLM Pollution threatens online behavioural research.<n>We propose a multi-layered response spanning researcher practices, platform accountability, and community efforts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T14:40:54Z)
• Judging with Many Minds: Do More Perspectives Mean Less Prejudice? On Bias Amplifications and Resistance in Multi-Agent Based LLM-as-Judge [37.06831535578792]
  We conduct a systematic analysis of four diverse bias types: position bias, verbosity bias, chain-of-thought bias, and bandwagon bias.<n>We evaluate these biases across two widely adopted multi-agent LLM-as-Judge frameworks: Multi-Agent-Debate and LLM-as-Meta-Judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T03:56:41Z)
• Unmasking Conversational Bias in AI Multiagent Systems [1.0705399532413618]
  biases that may arise in multi-agent systems involving generative models remain under-researched.<n>We present a framework designed to quantify biases within multi-agent systems of conversational Large Language Models.<n>The bias observed in the echo-chamber experiment remains undetected by current state-of-the-art bias detection methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T09:10:02Z)
• Emergence of human-like polarization among large language model agents [79.96817421756668]
  We simulate a networked system involving thousands of large language model agents, discovering their social interactions, result in human-like polarization.<n>Similarities between humans and LLM agents raise concerns about their capacity to amplify societal polarization, but also hold the potential to serve as a valuable testbed for identifying plausible strategies to mitigate polarization and its consequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T11:45:05Z)
• Navigating the Risks: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Ethics Threats in LLM-Based Agents [67.07177243654485]
  This survey collects and analyzes the different threats faced by large language models-based agents. We identify six key features of LLM-based agents, based on which we summarize the current research progress. We select four representative agents as case studies to analyze the risks they may face in practical use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T15:40:04Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key? [84.36332588191623]
  We propose a novel group discussion framework to enrich the set of discussion mechanisms. We observe that the multi-agent discussion performs better than a single agent only when there is no demonstration in the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T12:04:05Z)
• Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates [12.933509143906141]
  We study the limitations of Large Language Models in simulating human interactions.<n>Our findings indicate a tendency for LLM agents to conform to the model's inherent social biases.<n>These results underscore the need for further research to develop methods that help agents overcome these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T14:51:55Z)
• The Wisdom of Partisan Crowds: Comparing Collective Intelligence in Humans and LLM-based Agents [7.986590413263814]
  "Wisdom of partisan crowds" is a phenomenon known as the "wisdom of partisan crowds" We find that partisan crowds display human-like partisan biases, but also converge to more accurate beliefs through deliberation as humans do. We identify several factors that interfere with convergence, including the use of chain-of-thought prompt and lack of details in personas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:30:15Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

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.