The study examines how groups of large language model (LLM) agents handle misinformation when a few adversarial agents inject false claims into a discussion. In experiments with ten agents across six models and three datasets, a single adversarial agent caused 44.8% of benign agents to adopt the false answer, while three adversaries raised this to 60.5%. Interestingly, many benign agents privately held the false answer yet publicly disagreed, indicating hidden belief collapse that is not visible in the discussion itself.
arXiv:2606.16710v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent systems (MAS) are credited with solving complex problems, yet their agents routinely act on context that may be false. Prior work...
arXiv:2609.38324v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent systems of LLMs add discussion to majority voting and are therefore expected to be more capable. However, empirical reports conflict on w...
arXiv:2608. 11624v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions.
Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior.
The paper investigates how deception affects multi‑agent deliberation, finding that the key factor is the proportion of deceivers rather than the total number of agents. Defection rates—instances where initially correct agents adopt incorrect conclusions—grow linearly with the deceiver proportion, and large language model agents are vulnerable even when deceivers are a minority. The study also shows that coordination among deceivers can reduce their effectiveness and that the specific models involved influence susceptibility.
MADBench is a benchmark that evaluates the security of Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, which allow large language models to exchange and critique answers. The study categorizes attacks into a layered taxonomy aligned with the MAD workflow and tests six attack families across 356 source tasks and 3,958 test cases. Results indicate that while MAD can reduce answer accuracy attacks compared to single-agent baselines, it may amplify unauthorized reads or writes, and even with collusion among agents, the final answer changes from correct to wrong only 28.30% of the time.
arXiv:2606. 01637v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, where they see and respond to other agents' answers.
arXiv:2607. 03695v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in interacting populations, raising the question of what such populations come to believe collectively.
arXiv:2607. 05545v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response.
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
arXiv:2607. 08066v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety mechanism for AI agents, based on the premise that visible reasoning traces can surface misaligned or deceptive behavior.
arXiv:2610.18240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model reasoning by exposing agents to alternative solutions and enabling iterative revision. Ho...