# An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01332 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01332/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 21 of its 59 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00770/) (2023)
- [Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.02716/) (2024)
- [Personal LLM Agents: Insights and Survey about the Capability, Efficiency and Security](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05459/) (2024)
- [Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04892/) (2023)
- [Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04076/) (2023)
- [Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11436/) (2024)
- [On the Algorithmic Bias of Aligning Large Language Models with RLHF: Preference Collapse and Matching Regularization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16455/) (2024)
- [Datasets for Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18041/) (2024)
- [Capabilities of Large Language Models in Control Engineering: A Benchmark Study on GPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini 1.0 Ultra](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03647/) (2024)
- [DEBATE: Devil's Advocate-Based Assessment and Text Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.09935/) (2024)
- [DRAFT: Dense Retrieval Augmented Few-shot Topic classifier Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02532/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [FlowSteer: Prompt-Only Workflow Steering Exposes Planning-Time Vulnerabilities in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11514/) (2026)
- [Large Language Models Exhibit Normative Conformity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19301/) (2026)
- [Emergence of Biased Consensus in Multi-Agent LLM Debates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02827/) (2026)
- [Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: An SDLC-Oriented Rapid Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13103/) (2026)
- [The Hermon Moment: AI Self-Transcendence and Its Human Narration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.30971/) (2026)
- [How does Adversarial Influence Scale in Multi-Agent Systems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.30028/) (2026)
- [When Order Matters: First-Speaker Bias and Mitigation through Personality in Sequential Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38964/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled multi-agent systems that simulate real-world interactions with near-human reasoning. While previous studies have extensively examined biases related to protected attributes such as race, the emergence and propagation of biases on socially contentious issues in multi-agent LLM interactions remain underexplored. This study explores how LLM agents shape public opinion through debates on five contentious topics. By simulating over 2,500 debates, we analyze how initially neutral agents, assigned a centrist disposition, adopt specific stances over time. Statistical analyses reveal significant group conformity mirroring human behavior; LLM agents tend to align with numerically dominant groups or more intelligent agents, exerting a greater influence. These findings underscore the crucial role of agent intelligence in shaping discourse and highlight the risks of bias amplification in online interactions. Our results emphasize the need for policy measures that promote diversity and transparency in LLM-generated discussions to mitigate the risks of bias propagation within anonymous online environments.