Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Social Dynamics as Critical Vulnerabilities that Undermine Objective Decision-Making in LLM Collectives

Changgeon Ko, Jisu Shin, Hoyun Song, Huije Lee +2 more

Published

Apr 7, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

37/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

50% (Moderate)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Domain Experts

Signals refreshed

Apr 7, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics General Multi Agent Simulation Env

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
37/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision. Drawing inspiration from social psychology, we investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network. We define four key phenomena-social conformity, perceived expertise, dominant speaker effect, and rhetorical persuasion-and systematically manipulate the number of adversaries, relative intelligence, argument length, and argumentative styles. Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent's accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation. Furthermore, rhetorical strategies emphasizing credibility or logic can further sway the agent's judgment, depending on the context. These findings reveal that multi-agent systems are sensitive not only to individual reasoning but also to the social dynamics of their configuration, highlighting critical vulnerabilities in AI delegates that mirror the psychological biases observed in human group decision-making.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent's accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation."

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"We define four key phenomena-social conformity, perceived expertise, dominant speaker effect, and rhetorical persuasion-and systematically manipulate the number of adversaries, relative intelligence, argument length, and argumentative styles."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Domain Experts
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env
Agentic eval
Multi Agent
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Moderate
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision.
  • Drawing inspiration from social psychology, we investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network.
  • We define four key phenomena-social conformity, perceived expertise, dominant speaker effect, and rhetorical persuasion-and systematically manipulate the number of adversaries, relative intelligence, argument length, and argumentative styles.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Accuracy

Contribution summary

  • Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision.
  • Drawing inspiration from social psychology, we investigate how the reliability of this representative agent is undermined by the social context of its network.
  • Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent's accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation.

Why it matters for eval

  • Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly acting as human delegates in multi-agent environments, where a representative agent integrates diverse peer perspectives to make a final decision.
  • Our experiments demonstrate that the representative agent's accuracy consistently declines as social pressure increases: larger adversarial groups, more capable peers, and longer arguments all lead to significant performance degradation.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy