资讯

Phantom Consensus: Measuring Social Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLM Decision-Making

📅 2026-11-09 ⏱️ 约 7 分钟阅读 ✍️ AI导航编辑部 🔗 arxiv.org
Phantom Consensus: Measuring Social Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLM Decision-Making
📝 内容摘要

Computer Science > Multiagent Systems [Submitted on 6 Nov 2026] Title:Phantom Consensus: Measuring Social Reasonin

📌 核心要点

  • Computer Science > Multiagent Systems
  • [Submitted on 6 Nov 2026]
  • From: Disha Sheshanarayana [view email][v1] Fri, 6 Nov 2026 04:33:59 UTC (1,164 KB)

Computer Science > Multiagent Systems

[Submitted on 6 Nov 2026]

Title:Phantom Consensus: Measuring Social Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLM Decision-Making

View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract:Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly aggregate judgments across model instances, but reasoning about other agents can itself introduce failure. We study a setting in which LLMs shift their public decisions after observing ambiguous social signals while reporting inaccurate estimates of what other agents privately judged, even when the group's recorded private judgments do not support the apparent consensus. We call this failure phantom consensus and study it as a pluralistic-ignorance-style pattern in controlled LLM collectives. To measure this phenomenon, we introduce PHANTOM-Bench, a benchmark that separates isolated private judgments, public decisions after ambiguous social signals, elicited estimates of the group's private judgment, transparency-based recovery, and controls for neutral public text and explicit vote-following. Across nine closed- and open-weight models, ambiguous public signals consistently degrade decision quality and can turn correct private group judgments into incorrect public collective outcomes. Public accuracy drops by as much as 47.8 percentage points, and collective rationality failures reach 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. We observe substantial errors in reported group-private beliefs alongside public-stage failures, while control conditions reveal model-dependent differences in susceptibility to ambiguous and explicit peer signals. Revealing the agents' recorded private decisions repairs many failures without revealing the gold label, although recovery varies across models. Our results show that evaluating multi-agent LLM systems requires measuring not only final agreement, but whether that agreement reflects independently measured private judgments or an apparent consensus.

Submission history

From: Disha Sheshanarayana [view email][v1] Fri, 6 Nov 2026 04:33:59 UTC (1,164 KB)

Additional Features

Current browse context:

cs.MA

References & Citations

Loading...

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

来源arxiv.org· 本文为编辑整理,仅供参考