Framing Effects in Independent-Agent Large Language Models: A Cross-Family Behavioral Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19282v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:10:34 GMT
• Title: Framing Effects in Independent-Agent Large Language Models: A Cross-Family Behavioral Analysis
• Abstract summary: We examine how prompt framing influences decisions in a threshold voting task involving individual-group interest conflict.<n>Results show that prompt framing significantly influences choice distributions, often shifting preferences toward risk-averse options.
• Score: 5.9342526365947625
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In many real-world applications, large language models (LLMs) operate as independent agents without interaction, thereby limiting coordination. In this setting, we examine how prompt framing influences decisions in a threshold voting task involving individual-group interest conflict. Two logically equivalent prompts with different framings were tested across diverse LLM families under isolated trials. Results show that prompt framing significantly influences choice distributions, often shifting preferences toward risk-averse options. Surface linguistic cues can even override logically equivalent formulations. This suggests that observed behavior reflects a tendency consistent with a preference for instrumental rather than cooperative rationality when success requires risk-bearing. The findings highlight framing effects as a significant bias source in non-interacting multi-agent LLM deployments, informing alignment and prompt design.

Related papers

• Persuasive and Compliant Tendencies Predict Group Decision-Making in Humans and Language Models [65.21691850622413]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with humans.<n>We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies.<n>We show that stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:50:56Z)
• Even More Deception: Objective Misalignment in Mixed-Motive LLM Multi-Agent Systems [13.111181135818184]
  Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in mixed-motive environments.<n>We propose a novel framework for evaluating objective misalignment using the social deduction game Werewolf.<n>Our results show that objective misalignment undermines outcomes in inherently adversarial environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:48:54Z)
• FAMA: Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic Framework for Open-Source LLMs in Interactive Tool Use Environments [60.3427704389541]
  Large Language Models are being increasingly deployed as the decision-making core of autonomous agents.<n>Yet, in conversational benchmarks, these agents frequently fail due to the cascading effects of incorrect decision-making.<n>We present the Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic framework to tackle these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T02:21:53Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• AffectAgent: Collaborative Multi-Agent Reasoning for Retrieval-Augmented Multimodal Emotion Recognition [62.16431420189863]
  LLM-based multimodal emotion recognition relies on static parametric memory and often hallucinates when interpreting nuanced affective states.<n>We introduce AffectAgent, an affect-oriented multi-agent retrieval-augmented generation framework.<n>AffectAgent comprises three jointly optimized agents, namely a query planner, an evidence filter, and an emotion generator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T13:49:19Z)
• State-Dependent Refusal and Learned Incapacity in RLHF-Aligned Language Models [0.0]
  We present a case-study methodology for auditing policy-linked behavioral selectivity in long-horizon interaction.<n>In a single 86-turn dialogue session, the same model shows Normal Performance (NP) in broad, non-sensitive domains while repeatedly producing Functional Refusal (FR) in provider- or policy-sensitive domains.<n>We operationalize three response regimes (NP, FR, Meta-Narrative; MN) and show that MN role-framing narratives tend to co-occur with refusals in the same sensitive contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-15T14:00:15Z)
• Self-Correcting Large Language Models: Generation vs. Multiple Choice [29.697851249014192]
  Large language models have recently demonstrated remarkable abilities to self-correct their responses through iterative refinement.<n>We compare performance trends and error-correction behaviors across various natural language understanding and reasoning tasks.<n>Our findings highlight that the design of self-correction mechanisms should take into account the interaction between task structure and output space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T14:46:40Z)
• Disentangling Interaction and Bias Effects in Opinion Dynamics of Large Language Models [0.42481744176244507]
  Large Language Models are increasingly used to simulate human opinion dynamics.<n>We present a Bayesian framework to disentangle and quantify three such biases.<n>Applying this framework to multi-step dialogues reveals that opinion trajectories tend to quickly converge to a shared attractor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T16:26:45Z)
• When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreements [56.29265568399648]
  We argue that disagreements prevent premature consensus and expand the explored solution space.<n>Disagreements on task-critical steps can derail collaboration depending on the topology of solution paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:24:43Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Causal Influence in Federated Edge Inference [34.487472866247586]
  In this paper, we consider a setting where heterogeneous agents with connectivity are performing inference using unlabeled streaming data. In order to overcome the uncertainty, agents cooperate with each other by exchanging their local inferences with and through a fusion center. Various scenarios reflecting different agent participation patterns and fusion center policies are investigated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:06:50Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Intuitive or Dependent? Investigating LLMs' Behavior Style to Conflicting Prompts [9.399159332152013]
  This study investigates the behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs) when faced with conflicting prompts versus their internal memory. This will help to understand LLMs' decision mechanism and also benefit real-world applications, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:26:03Z)
• Counterfactual Reasoning for Out-of-distribution Multimodal Sentiment Analysis [56.84237932819403]
  This paper aims to estimate and mitigate the bad effect of textual modality for strong OOD generalization. Inspired by this, we devise a model-agnostic counterfactual framework for multimodal sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-24T03:57:40Z)

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.