Herd Behavior: Investigating Peer Influence in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems
Open accessAbstract
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled the emergence of multi-agent systems where LLMs interact, collaborate, and make decisions in shared environments. While individual model behavior has been extensively studied, the dynamics of peer influence in such systems remain underexplored. In this paper, we investigate herd behavior, the tendency of agents to align their outputs with those of their peers, within LLM-based multi-agent interactions. We present a series of controlled experiments that reveal how herd behaviors are shaped by multiple factors. First, we show that the gap between self-confidence and perceived confidence in peers significantly impacts an agent's likelihood to conform. Second, we find that the format in which peer information is presented plays a critical role in modulating the strength of herd behavior. Finally, we demonstrate that the degree of herd behavior can be systematically controlled, and that appropriately calibrated herd tendencies can enhance collaborative outcomes. These findings offer new insights into the social dynamics of LLM-based systems and open pathways for designing more effective and adaptive multi-agent collaboration frameworks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLM agents can exhibit conformity, meaning that during multi-agent interactions, agents tend to favor answers endorsed by the majority.
“Meanwhile, recent studies reveal that LLM agents can exhibit conformity (Weng et al., 2025;Zhu et al., 2025;Cho et al., 2025), meaning that during multi-agent interactions, agents tend to favor answers endorsed by the majority.”
From Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate (2026) · cites this paper as Cho et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 . · arXiv
- Solomon E Asch. 2016. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In Organizational influence processes , pages 295-303. Routledge.
- Abhijit V Banerjee. 1992. A simple model of herd behavior. The quarterly journal of economics , 107(3):797-817.
- Dan Bang, Laurence Aitchison, Rani Moran, Santiago Herce Castanon, Banafsheh Rafiee, Ali Mahmoodi, Jennifer YF Lau, Peter E Latham, Bahador Bahrami, and Christopher Summerfield. 2017. Confidence matching in group decision-making. Nature Human Behaviour , 1(6):0117.
- Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch. 1992. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of political Economy , 100(5):992-1026.
- Nuo Chen, Jiqun Liu, Xiaoyu Dong, Qijiong Liu, Tetsuya Sakai, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2024. Ai can be cognitively biased: An exploratory study on threshold priming in llm-based batch relevance assessment. In Proceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region , pages 54-63.
- Young-Min Cho, Raphael Shu, Nilaksh Das, Tamer Alkhouli, Yi-An Lai, Jason Cai, Monica Sunkara, and Yi Zhang. 2024. Roundtable: Investigating group decision-making mechanism in multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07161 . · arXiv
- Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457 . · arXiv
- Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. 2023. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning .
- Esin Durmus, Karina Nguyen, Thomas I Liao, Nicholas Schiefer, Amanda Askell, Anton Bakhtin, Carol Chen, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Nicholas Joseph, et al. 2023. Towards measuring the representation of subjective global opinions in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16388 . · arXiv
- Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2024. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680 . · arXiv
- Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, et al. 2023. Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352 , 3(4):6. · arXiv
- Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Arabella Sinclair. 2024. Do language models exhibit humanlike structural priming effects? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04847 . · arXiv
- Philippe Laban, Lidiya Murakhovs' ka, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2023. Are you sure? challenging llms leads to performance drops in the flipflop experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08596 . · arXiv
- Tongxuan Liu, Xingyu Wang, Weizhe Huang, Wenjiang Xu, Yuting Zeng, Lei Jiang, Hailong Yang, and Jing Li. 2024a. Groupdebate: Enhancing the efficiency of multi-agent debate using group discussion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14051 . · arXiv
- Xuan Liu, Jie Zhang, Haoyang Shang, Song Guo, Chengxu Yang, and Quanyan Zhu. 2024b. Exploring prosocial irrationality for llm agents: A social cognition view. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14744 . · arXiv
- Mehdi Moussaïd, Juliane E Kämmer, Pantelis P Analytis, and Hansjörg Neth. 2013. Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation. PloS one , 8(11):e78433.
- Lev Muchnik, Sinan Aral, and Sean J Taylor. 2013. Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science , 341(6146):647-651.
- Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology , pages 1-22.
- Ramsey M Raafat, Nick Chater, and Chris Frith. 2009. Herding in humans. Trends in cognitive sciences , 13(10):420-428.
- David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. 2024. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling .
- Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2023. Whose opinions do language models reflect? In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 29971-30004. PMLR.
- Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan LeBras, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Socialiqa: Commonsense reasoning about social interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09728 . · arXiv
- Jonathan Shaki, Sarit Kraus, and Michael Wooldridge. 2023. Cognitive effects in large language models. In ECAI 2023 , pages 2105-2112. IOS Press.
- Arabella Sinclair, Jaap Jumelet, Willem Zuidema, and Raquel Fernández. 2022. Structural persistence in language models: Priming as a window into abstract language representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 10:1031-1050.
- Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. 2024. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. In The Thirtyeight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track .
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:24824-24837.
- Zhiyuan Weng, Guikun Chen, and Wenguan Wang. 2025. Do as we do, not as you think: the conformity of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13381 . · arXiv
- Zengqing Wu and Takayuki Ito. 2025. The hidden strength of disagreement: Unraveling the consensusdiversity tradeoff in adaptive multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16565 . · arXiv
- Yijun Xiao and William Yang Wang. 2019. Quantifying uncertainties in natural language processing tasks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 33, pages 7322-7329.
- Zelai Xu, Chao Yu, Fei Fang, Yu Wang, and Yi Wu. 2023. Language agents with reinforcement learning for strategic play in the werewolf game. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18940 . · arXiv
- Paul Zarnoth and Janet A Sniezek. 1997. The social influence of confidence in group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 33(4):345-366.
- Xiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Tom Stafford, Nigel Collier, and Andreas Vlachos. 2024. Conformity in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12428 . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate
Cui, Y., Fu, H., Zhang, H., Wang, L., & Zuo, C. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1600 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate
Hao, X., Wu, Z., Qiu, Y.-X., Xiao, C., Xu, R., Zheng, S., & Qin, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.00820
- Authors
- Cho, Y.-M., Guntuku, S. C., & Ungar, L.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2505.21588
- OpenAlex
- W4416046044
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
- Keywords
- herding behavior, peer influence, multi-agent LLM systems, large language models, conformity, self-confidence, presentation format, agent cooperation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
