Resilient Consensus in Agentic AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15024v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 23:41:53 GMT
• Title: Resilient Consensus in Agentic AI
• Abstract summary: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems where they must coordinate and agree on shared decisions.<n>We ask whether classical resilient consensus theory, developed for deterministic agents, transfers to LLM agents that may behave adversarially.
• Score: 22.283866173947278
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems where they must coordinate and agree on shared decisions. We ask whether classical resilient consensus theory, developed for deterministic agents, transfers to LLM agents that may behave adversarially. Framing LLM agreement as a Byzantine consensus game, we run controlled experiments on complete and general communication graphs. We find that prompted LLM agents fail to reach agreement that is achievable in principle: consensus can fail even in settings where classical theory guarantees that a convergent algorithm exists, and this failure persists across temperatures and horizons. At the same time, wrapping the agents with classical resilient consensus filters improves agreement. The benefit of filtering depends on how much robustness the underlying topology already provides. Our results suggest that classical resilient consensus theory is a useful lens for the safety of agentic AI.

Related papers

• Relational Priors as Convergence Pressure in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems [13.096154493399764]
  We study the effects of making inter-agent relation semantics explicit in large language model-based multi-agent systems.<n>We find that increasing relational positivity tends to make agents coordinate or agree more readily.<n>We argue that relational priors should not be a default add-on for LLM-MAS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T07:11:28Z)
• Robust Multi-Agent LLMs under Byzantine Faults [12.778788735297288]
  Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly collaborate over peer-to-peer networks to improve their reliability.<n> unreliable or Byzantine agents may sway neighboring agents toward incorrect conclusions and degrade overall system performance.<n>Existing methods rely on leader-based coordination or self-reported confidence, both of which are susceptible to adversarial manipulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-09T17:37:43Z)
• Position: agentic AI orchestration should be Bayes-consistent [92.04373485710285]
  This paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system.<n>It provides examples and design patterns to illustrate how beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T15:43:43Z)
• 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)
• Can AI Agents Agree? [32.75269650141292]
  Large language models are increasingly deployed as cooperating agents, yet their behavior in adversarial consensus settings has not been studied.<n>We evaluate LLM-based agents on a Byzantine consensus game over scalar values using a synchronous all-to-all simulation.<n>We find that valid agreement is not reliable even in benign settings and degrades as group size grows.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T18:18:59Z)
• The Seeds of Scheming: Weakness of Will in the Building Blocks of Agentic Systems [0.0]
  Large language models display a peculiar form of inconsistency: they "know" the correct answer but fail to act on it.<n>In human philosophy, this tension between global judgment and local impulse is called akrasia, or weakness of will.<n>We propose akrasia as a foundational concept for analyzing inconsistency and goal drift in agentic AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-05T05:57:40Z)
• Maestro: Learning to Collaborate via Conditional Listwise Policy Optimization for Multi-Agent LLMs [23.590034731179824]
  We present Through Role Orchestration (Maestro), a principled paradigm for collaboration that structurally decouples cognitive modes.<n>Maestro uses a collective of parallel Execution Agents for diverse exploration and a specialized Central Agent for convergent, evaluative synthesis.<n>Experiments on mathematical reasoning and general problem-solving benchmarks demonstrate that Maestro, coupled with CLPO, consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art multi-agent approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-08T21:01:27Z)
• Do LLMs trust AI regulation? Emerging behaviour of game-theoretic LLM agents [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different regulatory scenarios.<n>Our research identifies emerging behaviours of strategic AI agents, which tend to adopt more "pessimistic" stances than pure game-theoretic agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T15:41:21Z)
• Byzantine-Resilient Over-the-Air Federated Learning under Zero-Trust Architecture [68.83934802584899]
  We propose a novel Byzantine-robust FL paradigm for over-the-air transmissions, referred to as federated learning with secure adaptive clustering (FedSAC)<n>FedSAC aims to protect a portion of the devices from attacks through zero trust architecture (ZTA) based Byzantine identification and adaptive device clustering.<n> Numerical results substantiate the superiority of the proposed FedSAC over existing methods in terms of both test accuracy and convergence rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T01:56:30Z)
• 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)
• Robust Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning via Adversarial Regularization: Theoretical Foundation and Stable Algorithms [79.61176746380718]
  Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) has shown promising results across several domains. MARL policies often lack robustness and are sensitive to small changes in their environment. We show that we can gain robustness by controlling a policy's Lipschitz constant. We propose a new robust MARL framework, ERNIE, that promotes the Lipschitz continuity of the policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T20:14:06Z)

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.