The paper investigates how a minority of biased agents in a multi‑agent system of large language models (LLMs) can amplify bias through textual interactions. Even a small percentage of persistently extreme agents causes significant opinion shifts among the non‑biased agents, with the effect occurring faster in the Llama 3.2 model than in a classical Friedkin‑Johnsen model. Semantic analysis shows that rhetorical consistency rises with biased exposure and that non‑biased agents adopt the biased vocabulary even when their numerical opinions change only modestly.
By Omran Berjawi, Giuseppe Fenza, Rida Khatoun
The paper introduces a controlled testbed to study how goal‑directed persuaders shift stances in networks of large language model agents, using real‑world ego‑network topologies. Experiments across four LLM backbones, five graph structures, and 55 policy statements show that persuasion dynamics depend on topology, competition, topic, and model prior. The study finds that direct exposure predicts stance change, peer relays have measurable influence, and that post‑text analysis alone misses important movement, highlighting the need to evaluate multi‑agent persuasion through trajectory‑level processes, belief probes, exposure provenance, and action logs.
By Haoyi Qiu, Genglin Liu, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Kung-Hsiang Huang, Saadia Gabriel, Chien-Sheng Wu, Nanyun Peng
arXiv:2607. 01661v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent systems are increasingly used for forecasting future events, as deliberation among multiple LLMs is believed to improve reasoning and calibration.
By Yuante Li, Yicheng Tao, Kate Zhang, Taozhi Wang, Gefei Gu, Yaxin Zhou
arXiv:2606. 19494v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent LLM deliberation, where agents exchange and revise answers over several rounds, is increasingly used to improve reasoning and accuracy, yet how and why it works is rarely modelled.
By Apurba Pokharel, Ram Dantu
Multi-agent systems are increasingly used for forecasting future events, as deliberation among multiple LLMs is believed to improve reasoning and calibration. Yet existing approaches overlook a critical design choice: what information each agent receives.
arXiv:2604. 02668v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy: agreement with user stance even when it conflicts with the model's opinion.
By Vira Kasprova, Amruta Parulekar, Abdulrahman AlRabah, Krishna Agaram, Ritwik Garg, Sagar Jha, Nimet Beyza Bozdag, Dilek Hakkani-Tur
arXiv:2608. 16578v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation.
By Batu El, Jinhee Paeng, Fatih Dinc, Shiye Su, Mete Erdogan, Aneesh Pappu, Haotian Ye, Wanjia Zhao, Surya Ganguli, James Zou
The paper introduces Bayesian Dialectical Argumentation (BDA), a method for aggregating answers from multiple large language models (LLMs) in a council setting. BDA treats each LLM’s typed moves—proposals, challenges, and concessions—as evidence in a classical annotator model, estimating per-agent reliability even when some agents are persistently unreliable. By weighting evidence according to these inferred reliabilities, BDA produces calibrated posterior probabilities for candidate answers and can invert unreliable agents instead of merely outvoting them, achieving superior calibration and robustness on both binary and multi-class benchmarks without extra LLM calls.
By Ionel Eduard Stan, Paolo Napoletano
The paper introduces Bayesian Chronicle Agents (BCA), a lightweight belief layer that separates an LLM agent’s internal stance from its outward speech. Each stance is represented as a probability updated via a single Bayesian step per utterance, with a single prior‑strength parameter κ controlling stubbornness. By sweeping κ, the authors generate three controllable opinion‑dynamics regimes—consensus, persistent disagreement, and committed‑minority influence—matching Friedkin–Johnsen theory and demonstrating recoverable, auditable belief states across models.
By Hafsa Akbar, Daniel Platnick, Marjan Alirezaie, Hossein Rahnama
arXiv:2601. 19921v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost.
By Xiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Yizhou Chi, Tom Stafford, Nigel Collier, Andreas Vlachos
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...
By Chand Sahil Mansuri, Xin Wang, Mengying Li, Bryan Acton, Rory Eckardt, Dhaval Patel, Sadamori Kojaku
The paper investigates whether compact surrogate models can reduce the cost of simulating large language model (LLM) societies while still reproducing their collective behavior. Using 9,455 published trajectories and new opinion‑dynamics experiments, it finds that incorporating neighbor information improves individual predictions across all 16 public‑data settings and enhances pooled collective forecasts on held‑out questions, though the collective gains vary with transfer conditions. Additional tests on 24 new statements do not confirm earlier contrasting history effects, and Qwen shows benefit from history only after three observed rounds, underscoring the need for direct collective validation, explicit limits on available observations, and comparisons with simple baselines.
By Igor Itkin