How does Adversarial Influence Scale in Multi-Agent Systems?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-agent deliberation can improve performance, but what happens when some agents do not act in good faith? In practice, an agent may be deceptive and work to subvert the group, whether through its own objectives or external instruction. We study how susceptibility to deception scales as groups increase in size and deceivers become more prevalent. It is not the number of agents in the group that matters, but the proportion of deceivers. We observe that the defection rate, how often initially correct agents switch to an incorrect final answer, rises linearly with this proportion. Whereas humans in comparable conformity studies are reliably swayed only when misleading confederates form a majority, LLM agents defect regularly even when deceivers remain a minority. Susceptibility also depends on which models are interacting, especially on the honest agent side. Unexpectedly, allowing deceivers to coordinate privately can make them less effective. Altogether, our results show that adding more agents is therefore not a sufficient defense, because the adversary can simply scale with the group.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.
Builds on
37 of 57 references.
References · 37
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,761
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,739
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,348
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 995
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
- 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 724
- 2018Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Ratescited by 698
- 2025Humanity's Last Examcited by 467
25 more
- 2024Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilitiescited by 420
- 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Basescited by 402
- 2018AI safety via debatecited by 384
- 2024Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answerscited by 255
- 2023Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language modelscited by 174
- 2024More Agents Is All You Needcited by 174
- 2025Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AIcited by 150
- 2024Agent Smith: A Single Image Can Jailbreak One Million Multimodal LLM Agents Exponentially Fastcited by 149
- 2024Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systemscited by 126
- 2025Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systemscited by 125
- 2025Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attackscited by 118
- 2024On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trialcited by 105
- 2024On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agentscited by 92
- 2024Flooding Spread of Manipulated Knowledge in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Communitiescited by 84
- 2025Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?cited by 74
- 2025Do as We Do, Not as You Think: the Conformity of Large Language Modelscited by 48
- 2025Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneitycited by 43
- 2024Conformity in Large Language Modelscited by 30
- 2025Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debatecited by 29
- 2025Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectivenesscited by 18
- 2025An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systemscited by 7
- 2026Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debatecited by 6
- 2026The Ringelmann Effect in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: A Scaling Law for Effective Team Sizecited by 3
- 2026Smarter Saboteurs, Better Fixers: Scaling & Security in Linear Multi-Agent Workflowscited by 2
- 2026The Best-Laid SCHEMEs: Coordinated Sabotage and Monitoring in Multi-Agent Systemscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Intentional Deception as Controllable Capability in LLM Agents
- 2025Group size effects and collective misalignment in LLM multi-agent systems
- 2025The Social Cost of Intelligence: Emergence, Propagation, and Amplification of Stereotypical Bias in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Trust, Lies, and Long Memories: Emergent Social Dynamics and Reputation in Multi-Round Avalon with LLM Agents
- 2025The Traitors: Deception and Trust in Multi-Agent Language Model Simulations
- 2026Multi-agent Scaling Across Disjunctive and Compensatory Tasks
- 2026LLMs Trust Their Own: Identity-Dependent Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Predicting the scale limits of social mechanisms in agent societies