Disagreements in Reasoning: How a Model's Thinking Process Dictates Persuasion in Multi-Agent Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21054v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:03:10 GMT
• Title: Disagreements in Reasoning: How a Model's Thinking Process Dictates Persuasion in Multi-Agent Systems
• Authors: Haodong Zhao, Jidong Li, Zhaomin Wu, Tianjie Ju, Zhuosheng Zhang, Bingsheng He, Gongshen Liu,
• Abstract summary: This paper challenges the prevailing hypothesis that persuasive efficacy is primarily a function of model scale.<n>Through a series of multi-agent persuasion experiments, we uncover a fundamental trade-off we term the Persuasion Duality.<n>Our findings reveal that the reasoning process in LRMs exhibits significantly greater resistance to persuasion, maintaining their initial beliefs more robustly.
• Score: 49.69773210844221
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rapid proliferation of recent Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), where Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) usually collaborate to solve complex problems, necessitates a deep understanding of the persuasion dynamics that govern their interactions. This paper challenges the prevailing hypothesis that persuasive efficacy is primarily a function of model scale. We propose instead that these dynamics are fundamentally dictated by a model's underlying cognitive process, especially its capacity for explicit reasoning. Through a series of multi-agent persuasion experiments, we uncover a fundamental trade-off we term the Persuasion Duality. Our findings reveal that the reasoning process in LRMs exhibits significantly greater resistance to persuasion, maintaining their initial beliefs more robustly. Conversely, making this reasoning process transparent by sharing the "thinking content" dramatically increases their ability to persuade others. We further consider more complex transmission persuasion situations and reveal complex dynamics of influence propagation and decay within multi-hop persuasion between multiple agent networks. This research provides systematic evidence linking a model's internal processing architecture to its external persuasive behavior, offering a novel explanation for the susceptibility of advanced models and highlighting critical implications for the safety, robustness, and design of future MAS.

Related papers

• Reasoning Models Generate Societies of Thought [9.112083442162671]
  We show that enhanced reasoning emerges from simulating multi-agent-like interactions.<n>We find that reasoning models like DeepSeek-R1 and QwQ-32B exhibit much greater perspective diversity than instruction-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T19:52:33Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• MMPersuade: A Dataset and Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Persuasion [73.99171322670772]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in domains such as shopping, health, and news.<n> MMPersuade provides a unified framework for systematically studying multimodal persuasion dynamics in LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T17:39:21Z)
• The Mirage of Multimodality: Where Truth is Tested and Honesty Unravels [22.497467057872377]
  This study is the first systematic investigation of distortions associated with System I and System II reasoning in multimodal contexts.<n>We demonstrate that slower reasoning models, when presented with incomplete or misleading visual inputs, are more likely to fabricate plausible yet false details to support flawed reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T16:55:38Z)
• Perception, Reason, Think, and Plan: A Survey on Large Multimodal Reasoning Models [79.52467430114805]
  Reasoning lies at the heart of intelligence, shaping the ability to make decisions, draw conclusions, and generalize across domains.<n>In artificial intelligence, as systems increasingly operate in open, uncertain, and multimodal environments, reasoning becomes essential for enabling robust and adaptive behavior.<n>Large Multimodal Reasoning Models (LMRMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm, integrating modalities such as text, images, audio, and video to support complex reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T03:35:23Z)
• What if...?: Thinking Counterfactual Keywords Helps to Mitigate Hallucination in Large Multi-modal Models [50.97705264224828]
  We propose Counterfactual Inception, a novel method that implants counterfactual thinking into Large Multi-modal Models. We aim for the models to engage with and generate responses that span a wider contextual scene understanding. Comprehensive analyses across various LMMs, including both open-source and proprietary models, corroborate that counterfactual thinking significantly reduces hallucination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T11:27:20Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)

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.