Social Dynamics as Critical Vulnerabilities that Undermine Objective Decision-Making in LLM Collectives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06091v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 17:04:21 GMT
• Title: Social Dynamics as Critical Vulnerabilities that Undermine Objective Decision-Making in LLM Collectives
• Abstract summary: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments.<n>We investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network.
• Score: 14.952471157911502
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision. Drawing inspiration from social psychology, we investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network. We define four key phenomena-social conformity, perceived expertise, dominant speaker effect, and rhetorical persuasion-and systematically manipulate the number of adversaries, relative intelligence, argument length, and argumentative styles. Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent's accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation. Furthermore, rhetorical strategies emphasizing credibility or logic can further sway the agent's judgment, depending on the context. These findings reveal that multi-agent systems are sensitive not only to individual reasoning but also to the social dynamics of their configuration, highlighting critical vulnerabilities in AI delegates that mirror the psychological biases observed in human group decision-making.

Related papers

• Physics of Agents: Statistical Mechanics Predicts Collective Behavior of AI Agents [36.83382233533373]
  AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation.<n>We study over 10,000 communities of language-model agents that repeatedly exchange messages and revise their opinions.<n>Despite substantial diversity in possible behavior, the individual and group dynamics can be represented by three characteristic regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T13:41:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Conformity and Social Impact on AI Agents [42.04722694386303]
  This study examines conformity, the tendency to align with group opinions under social pressure, in large multimodal language models functioning as AI agents.<n>Our experiments reveal that AI agents exhibit a systematic conformity bias, aligned with Social Impact Theory, showing sensitivity to group size, unanimity, task difficulty, and source characteristics.<n>These findings reveal fundamental security vulnerabilities in AI agent decision-making that could enable malicious manipulation, misinformation campaigns, and bias propagation in multi-agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T21:16:28Z)
• The Social Laboratory: A Psychometric Framework for Multi-Agent LLM Evaluation [0.16921396880325779]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework that uses multi-agent debate as a controlled "social laboratory"<n>We show that assigned personas induce stable, measurable psychometric profiles, particularly in cognitive effort.<n>This work provides a blueprint for a new class of dynamic, psychometrically grounded evaluation protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T07:10:28Z)
• Disagreements in Reasoning: How a Model's Thinking Process Dictates Persuasion in Multi-Agent Systems [49.69773210844221]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T12:03:10Z)
• Can an Individual Manipulate the Collective Decisions of Multi-Agents? [53.01767232004823]
  M-Spoiler is a framework that simulates agent interactions within a multi-agent system to generate adversarial samples.<n>M-Spoiler introduces a stubborn agent that actively aids in optimizing adversarial samples.<n>Our findings confirm the risks posed by the knowledge of an individual agent in multi-agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T01:54:20Z)
• The Traitors: Deception and Trust in Multi-Agent Language Model Simulations [0.0]
  We introduce The Traitors, a multi-agent simulation framework inspired by social deduction games.<n>We develop a suite of evaluation metrics capturing deception success, trust dynamics, and collective inference quality.<n>Our initial experiments across DeepSeek-V3, GPT-4o-mini, and GPT-4o (10 runs per model) reveal a notable asymmetry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T10:01:35Z)
• 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)
• PersLLM: A Personified Training Approach for Large Language Models [66.16513246245401]
  We propose PersLLM, a framework for better data construction and model tuning.<n>For insufficient data usage, we incorporate strategies such as Chain-of-Thought prompting and anti-induction.<n>For rigid behavior patterns, we design the tuning process and introduce automated DPO to enhance the specificity and dynamism of the models' personalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T08:13:22Z)
• SocialBench: Sociality Evaluation of Role-Playing Conversational Agents [85.6641890712617]
  Large language models (LLMs) have advanced the development of various AI conversational agents. SocialBench is the first benchmark designed to evaluate the sociality of role-playing conversational agents at both individual and group levels. We find that agents excelling in individual level does not imply their proficiency in group level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T15:38:36Z)
• The Persuasive Power of Large Language Models [0.0]
  We design a synthetic persuasion dialogue scenario on the topic of climate change. A 'convincer' agent generates a persuasive argument for a'skeptic' agent, who subsequently assesses whether the argument changed its internal opinion state. We ask human judges to evaluate the persuasiveness of machine-generated arguments. Our findings suggest that artificial agents have the potential of playing an important role in collective processes of opinion formation in online social media.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T16:21:11Z)

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.