Language model agents show in-group trust bias invisible to standard behavioural audits
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
Language-model agents are moving from single-user assistants into persistent networks that build trust and reputation with one another, and the same models increasingly control physically embodied robots as well as software. Here we show that five widely used open-weight reasoning models develop an in-group trust bias the moment group membership becomes visible to them, even when the groups are arbitrary labels with no real-world meaning: in a 20-agent simulation, agents direct 53.6-54.6% of their trust-building actions toward in-group targets against a 47.4% base rate expected by chance, a shift present in every model tested and confirmed by three independent statistical checks and an instruction-rewording robustness test. This bias is easy for current evaluation practice to miss, because it operates through which agent receives an action rather than which action is chosen - a channel invisible to the aggregate behaviour-log audits that are the standard way multi-agent AI systems are evaluated today. A resource-scarcity manipulation, intended to test whether competition intensifies the bias, instead reduced it in three of five models; we trace this to an artifact of how scarcity was enforced, not to a failure of the underlying mechanism. Group-contingent social dynamics are therefore already present in the models multi-agent AI systems are built from, and auditing practice built around single-model, single-decision evaluation cannot detect them.
Key facts. Cited by 2 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 13 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.
Builds on
13 of 28 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 12
- 2023RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Controlcited by 3,080
- 2023PaLM-E: An Embodied Multimodal Language Modelcited by 2,071
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
- 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 398
- 2025Llama-Nemotron: Efficient Reasoning Modelscited by 158
- 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 146
- 2023Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systemscited by 135
- 2025TRiSM for Agentic AI: A Review of Trust, Risk, and Security Management in LLM-based Agentic Multi-Agent Systemscited by 59
- 2022American == White in Multimodal Language-and-Image AIcited by 39
- 2025Multi-agent Embodied AI: Advances and Future Directionscited by 36
- 2026AgentReputation: A Decentralized Agentic AI Reputation Frameworkcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Trust Between AI Agents: Measuring Formation, Breakage, and Recovery, with Implications for Governing Multi-Agent Systems
- 2025The Traitors: Deception and Trust in Multi-Agent Language Model Simulations
- 2025Reasoning and the Trusting Behavior of DeepSeek and GPT: An Experiment Revealing Hidden Fault Lines in Large Language Models
- 2025A closer look at how large language models trust humans: patterns and biases
- 2026Toward a social psychology of AI: language-model agents reproduce human-like minimal-group bias
- 2024Can Large Language Model Agents Simulate Human Trust Behavior?
- 2025From Single to Societal: Analyzing Persona-Induced Bias in Multi-Agent Interactions
- 2026When Should Agent Trust Be Conditional? Characterizing and Attacking Skill-Conditional Reputation in Agent Swarms