Belief in Authority: Impact of Authority in Multi-Agent Evaluation Framework
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-agent systems utilizing large language models often assign authoritative roles to improve performance, yet the impact of authority bias on agent interactions remains underexplored. We present the first systematic analysis of role-based authority bias in free-form multi-agent evaluation using ChatEval. Applying French and Raven's power-based theory, we classify authoritative roles into legitimate, referent, and expert types and analyze their influence across 12-turn conversations. Experiments with GPT-4o and DeepSeek R1 reveal that Expert and Referent power roles exert stronger influence than Legitimate power roles. Crucially, authority bias emerges not through active conformity by general agents, but through authoritative roles consistently maintaining their positions while general agents demonstrate flexibility. Furthermore, authority influence requires clear position statements, as neutral responses fail to generate bias. These findings provide key insights for designing multi-agent frameworks with asymmetric interaction patterns.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jan 2026.
Builds on
10 of 29 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024Exploring Prosocial Irrationality for LLM Agents: A Social Cognition View23 May
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior7 Apr
Other references · 8
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
- 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPTcited by 255
- 2023Topical-Chat: Towards Knowledge-Grounded Open-Domain Conversationscited by 88
- 2024LLM Harmony: Multi-Agent Communication for Problem Solvingcited by 34
- 2023Adapting LLM Agents with Universal Feedback in Communicationcited by 19
- 2025Don't Judge Code by Its Cover: Exploring Biases in LLM Judges for Code Evaluationcited by 18
- 2025Bias Beware: The Impact of Cognitive Biases on LLM-Driven Product Recommendationscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Easier to Mislead Than to Correct: Harmful and Beneficial Revision in LLM Conformitycited by 6
- 2026A Mechanistic View of Authority Hierarchy in LLM Sycophancycited by 6
- 2026Most LLM Conformity Needs No Speaker: Measuring the Speaker-Free Floor in Peer-Pressure Benchmarkscited by 4
- 2026Social Pressure Breaks Majority Voting in LLM Safety Panelscited by 1
- 2026Social Pressure Breaks Majority Voting in LLM Safety Panels5 Aug 2026
- 2026Most LLM Conformity Needs No Speaker: Measuring the Speaker-Free Floor in Peer-Pressure Benchmarks6 Jul 2026
- 2026A Mechanistic View of Authority Hierarchy in LLM Sycophancy1 Jul 2026
- 2026Easier to Mislead Than to Correct: Harmful and Beneficial Revision in LLM Conformity1 Jun 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluation
- 2025An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Examining Agents' Bias Amplification versus Suppression in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Multi-Agent Systems are Mixtures of Experts: Who Becomes an Influencer?
- 2025The Social Laboratory: A Psychometric Framework for Multi-Agent LLM Evaluation
- 2025Estimating the Empowerment of Language Model Agents
- 2026When Order Matters: First-Speaker Bias and Mitigation through Personality in Sequential Multi-Agent Debate
- 2026LLMs Trust Their Own: Identity-Dependent Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems