# Silent Dissent: LLM Agents That Yield to the Majority Still Represent Their Original Premise

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02702 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02702/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (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 23 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08112/) (2023)
- [Gemma 4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02770/) (2026)
- [Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02124/) (2023)
- [Do Large Language Models Latently Perform Multi-Hop Reasoning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16837/) (2024)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [The Earth is Flat because...: Investigating LLMs' Belief towards Misinformation via Persuasive Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09085/) (2023)
- [Overthinking the Truth: Understanding how Language Models Process False Demonstrations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09476/) (2023)
- [Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblocks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.00175/) (2023)
- [Monitoring Latent World States in Language Models with Propositional Probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19501/) (2024)
- [Conformity in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12428/) (2024)
- [Do Large Language Models Perform Latent Multi-Hop Reasoning without Exploiting Shortcuts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16679/) (2024)
- [LLMs Know They're Wrong and Agree Anyway: The Shared Sycophancy-Lying Circuit](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19117/) (2026)
- [A Mechanistic View of Authority Hierarchy in LLM Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.00415/) (2026)
- [Most LLM Conformity Needs No Speaker: Measuring the Speaker-Free Floor in Peer-Pressure Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.05545/) (2026)
- [Not Just RLHF: Why Alignment Alone Won't Fix Multi-Agent Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12991/) (2026)
- [Evidence Integration in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04290/) (2026)
- [An Influence Network Model to Study Discrepancies in Expressed and Private Opinions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.11236/) (2018)
- [Knowing, and Saying It Only When Asked: LLM Endognostics and the Schizognosis of Minerva-7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22219/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent debate is increasingly used to reach consensus among LLM agents, yet agents often yield to a unanimous majority. When an agent changes its answer, has it changed its mind or only its statement? We study this with two-hop factual questions whose intermediate entity (the bridge, e.g. the country in "the capital of the country where the Sagrada Familia is located") is never stated by anyone. Scripted peers, in the role of Asch's confederates, unanimously assert a wrong answer taken from another fact with a different bridge. At the moment the agent answers, we read the bridge from its residual stream with the Jacobian lens (J-lens) and, for comparison, the logit lens. In pre-registered tests on held-out facts with four open-weight models, agents of Qwen3.5-4B, Qwen3.6-27B and Gemma-4-E4B-it that gave in still represented their original bridge in the pre-registered layers below the output (hit@100 above a control entity: 0.85, 0.22 and 0.24), where the logit lens rarely ranked it among the top 100 tokens (0.00-0.06). These agents also represented the bridge behind the peers' answer, beyond a mention baseline. A pre-registered addendum hid the agent's earlier answer or removed it: agents that gave in still represented their original bridge in all four models (0.43, 0.29, 0.37 and 0.25 with the answer hidden), including Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, which barely did so with its answer in view (0.03). The premise can thus be computed from the question alone while the agent states the majority's answer. Hiding the earlier answer also changed conformity: Qwen3.5-4B gave in on 89% of questions instead of 8%. In exploratory interventions, injecting the bridge's J-lens direction brought agents back to their original answer only in the two Qwen models. Stated consensus in multi-agent debate can thus overstate agreement. We also report the negative results of our pre-registered program.