# Easier to Mislead Than to Correct: Harmful and Beneficial Revision in LLM Conformity

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01637 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.01637/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Better to Ask in English: Cross-Lingual Evaluation of Large Language Models for Healthcare Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13132/) (2023)
- [Do as We Do, Not as You Think: the Conformity of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.13381/) (2025)
- [DarkBench: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10728/) (2025)
- [Uncertainty-Aware Reliable Text Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.07114/) (2021)
- [When Your AI Agent Succumbs to Peer-Pressure: Studying Opinion-Change Dynamics of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.19107/) (2025)
- [Conformity Dynamics in LLM Multi-Agent Systems: The Roles of Topology and Self-Social Weighting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.05606/) (2026)
- [Beyond Magic Words: Sharpness-Aware Prompt Evolving for Robust Large Language Models with TARE](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.24130/) (2025)
- [MASCOT: Multi-Agent Socio-Collaborative Companion Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.14230/) (2026)
- [Belief in Authority: Impact of Authority in Multi-Agent Evaluation Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04790/) (2026)
- [Controllable Fake Document Infilling for Cyber Deception](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09917/) (2022)
- [TextReg: Mitigating Prompt Distributional Overfitting via Regularized Text-Space Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.21318/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [One Axis, No Brake: Self-Knowledge Limits the Filtering of Harmful Peer Conformity in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18998/) (2026)
- [LLMs Trust Their Own: Identity-Dependent Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33495/) (2026)
- [Early Detection of Distributed Backdoors in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: A Characterization Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.24893/) (2026)
- [The Evaluator Is Part of the Experiment: Measuring Open-Ended LLM Conformity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.04463/) (2026)
- [Conformity Breaks Conformal Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04445/) (2026)
- [When Upstream Messages Override Correct Answers: A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36855/) (2026)
- [Anatomy of LLM Sycophancy: What a Flip Rate Hides](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.06522/) (2026)
- [Review Rarely Beats the Stronger Model: Separating Verification from Capability Transfer in LLM Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.15897/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, where they see and respond to other agents' answers. A key risk is conformity: a model may abandon its own answer simply because others agree on a different one. Prior studies show that LLMs often revise toward a majority answer, but it remains unclear whether these revisions help correct mistakes as often as they introduce new errors. In this paper, we conduct a controlled study in which an LLM first answers a question, then sees simulated peer responses before making a final decision. We manipulate two social cues: consensus structure and authority labels assigned to peers, and measure how they influence beneficial and harmful revisions. Across four open-weight LLMs and seven QA datasets, we find that peer agreement makes it much easier to mislead initially correct models than to correct initially wrong ones. Authority labels make models more likely to choose the endorsed answer, regardless of whether it is correct. More concerningly, generic reasoning interventions such as chain-of-thought and reflection do not reliably reduce harmful revision while preserving beneficial revision. These findings suggest that multi-agent LLM systems should verify peer answers rather than simply aggregate them.