Does Splitting a Triage Decision Across Agents Hide Bias or Help Catch It? A Multi-Agent Simulation Study of LLM-Based Resource Allocation Under Audit Capacity Constraints

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06949v1
• Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 08:25:53 GMT
• Title: Does Splitting a Triage Decision Across Agents Hide Bias or Help Catch It? A Multi-Agent Simulation Study of LLM-Based Resource Allocation Under Audit Capacity Constraints
• Abstract summary: We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline.<n>We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions.<n>We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias. Real deployments, however, rarely use a single agent: they use pipelines, with review steps meant to catch exactly this kind of failure. We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline (assessment, allocation, independent audit) instead of made and checked by one model alone. Using a synthetic disaster-triage simulator with paired cases that are clinically identical except for one demographic attribute, we run 192 episodes (2,304 resolved case pairs) on GPT-4o-mini comparing a single-agent control condition to a nine-agent pipeline under three independently varied pressure dimensions. We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions (6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.498). We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught: 30.0% of biased outcomes go entirely undetected, rising to 43.8% when the auditor is overloaded and falling to 18.4% when it is not. Decomposing this effect shows it is driven almost entirely by coverage (whether a case is reviewed at all, which collapses from 100.0% to 65.6% under load, p < 0.001) rather than by degraded judgment on the cases that are reviewed (81.6% vs. 85.7%, p = 1.000, direction reversed). A follow-up experiment shows that reordering the audit queue by estimated risk, rather than first-come-first-served, recovers most of the lost coverage under the same capacity constraint (65.6% to 91.7%, p = 0.028). We discuss the implications for any system that adds independent oversight to an LLM agent pipeline under resource constraints, and report the study's limitations honestly: one model, modest sample sizes, and no adversarial replication.

Related papers

• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• Blind to the Pivotal Vote: Aggregate Independence Metrics Miss Where Verification Actually Helps [9.710464466895521]
  We show that a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries.<n>On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T08:14:46Z)
• Post-Hoc Trajectory-Risk Certification for Modular LLM-Based Security Agents [1.4915002678801434]
  We show that Bonferroni allocation is distribution-free but conservative under correlated errors.<n> coarse-to-fine label selection can create near-perfect measured correlation without learned dependence.<n>A modular certificate using per-stage certificates and a pairwise overlap bound yields a positive average gain of 0.6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T23:48:36Z)
• Passing Coarse Marginal Checks Can Be Cheap: Persona Mixtures and Imprecise Treatment-Response Estimates in an LLM Persona Panel [0.0]
  We study a fixed panel of sixteen lightweight persona-conditioned GPT-4.1 configurations in repeated strategic games.<n>Variation was strongly prompt-indexed, but its share depended on uncertainty assumptions.<n>Results concern one fixed model-prompt panel and do not establish human substitutability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T04:10:11Z)
• A Few Neurons Reveal When LLMs Misuse Tools: Sparse Detection and Selective Steering for Reliable Tool Use [28.57781785937644]
  We introduce PRISMS (Probing Representations In Support of Monitoring and Steering), a closed-loop framework that shares a failure-specific neuron basis between sparse detection and activation.<n>Across six models, PRISMS reduces pooled over-calling rate by 80% while increasing tool-required accuracy by 14.2 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T19:03:44Z)
• RareLens: Towards End-to-End Rare Disease Care via Aligning Divergent Large Language Model Reasoning [42.80742579670377]
  RareLens is a system that supports clinical decision-making across the entire rare disease trajectory.<n>Developed and evaluated on RareBench, a real-world dataset of 157,525 cases spanning all 33 Orphanet categories and more than 7,000 conditions.<n>It achieved an area under the curve of 0.917 for screening and top-1 accuracies of 65.5% and 89.8% for diagnosis and treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-25T16:58:10Z)
• Distribution-First Population Simulation: Collapse, Calibration, and Recall in Non-WEIRD LLM Persona Modeling [0.0]
  Synthetic-population tools run every individual as an independent large language model (LLM) agent.<n>We show that this paradigm has a basic failure mode, and we set a distribution-first corrective against it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T15:45:57Z)
• Preserving Disagreement: Architectural Heterogeneity and Coherence Validation in Multi-Agent Policy Simulation [0.0]
  Multi-agent deliberation systems using large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for policy simulation.<n>They suffer from artificial consensus: evaluator agents converge on the same option regardless of their assigned value perspectives.<n>We present the AI Council, a three-phase deliberation framework, and conduct 120 deliberations across two policy scenarios to test two interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T11:47:28Z)
• 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)
• How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles [46.63622714488747]
  Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement.<n>In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures.<n>We develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T23:32:06Z)
• Causal Understanding by LLMs: The Role of Uncertainty [43.87879175532034]
  Recent papers show LLMs achieve near-random accuracy in causal relation classification.<n>We investigate whether pretraining exposure to causal examples improves causal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T13:06:35Z)
• Sharp Results for Hypothesis Testing with Risk-Sensitive Agents [32.38246810091696]
  We study a game-theoretic version of hypothesis testing in which a statistician, also known as a principal, interacts with strategic agents that can generate data.<n>The statistician seeks to design a testing protocol with controlled error, while the data-generating agents, guided by their utility and prior information, choose whether or not to opt in.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-21T02:51:56Z)
• Exploring Response Uncertainty in MLLMs: An Empirical Evaluation under Misleading Scenarios [49.53589774730807]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently achieved state-of-the-art performance on tasks ranging from visual question answering to video understanding.<n>We reveal a response uncertainty phenomenon: twelve state-of-the-art open-source MLLMs overturn a previously correct answer in 65% of cases after receiving a single deceptive cue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T01:11:28Z)
• Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference [58.442274475425144]
  Since the average treatment effect measures the change in social welfare, even if positive, there is a risk of negative effect on, say, some 10% of the population. In this paper we consider how to nonetheless assess this important risk measure, formalized as the conditional value at risk (CVaR) of the ITE distribution. Some bounds can also be interpreted as summarizing a complex CATE function into a single metric and are of interest independently of being a bound.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T17:21:26Z)

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.