# How does Adversarial Influence Scale in Multi-Agent Systems?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30028 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.30028/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 37 of its 57 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (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)
- [Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Rates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.01498/) (2018)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [AI safety via debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.00899/) (2018)
- [Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06782/) (2024)
- [Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03958/) (2023)
- [More Agents Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05120/) (2024)
- [Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14143/) (2025)
- [Agent Smith: A Single Image Can Jailbreak One Million Multimodal LLM Agents Exponentially Fast](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08567/) (2024)
- [Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.08296/) (2025)
- [Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07283/) (2024)
- [Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14847/) (2025)
- [On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14380/) (2024)
- [On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00989/) (2024)
- [Flooding Spread of Manipulated Knowledge in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Communities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.07791/) (2024)
- [Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17536/) (2025)
- [Do as We Do, Not as You Think: the Conformity of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.13381/) (2025)
- [Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08788/) (2025)
- [Conformity in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12428/) (2024)

## 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.