arXiv preprint ·
When Debate Amplifies Risk: Social-Bias Vulnerabilities in Multi-Agent Safety Deliberation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented Web applications increasingly employ multi-agent debate (MAD) to aggregate conflicting, noisy, and heterogeneous information, yet deliberation is fundamentally a social process susceptible to interpersonal dynamics. When retrieved Web sources contain latent hazards alongside safe factual content, social biases such as conformity pressure and authority deference can override evidence-grounded safety boundaries. In this work, we investigate whether the social structure of deliberation can paradoxically amplify latent Web safety risks. We introduce SafeConflict-Bias, a controlled counterfactual diagnostic protocol spanning six core Web risk categories, which holds queries and retrieved evidence strictly invariant while isolating conversational majority sway, authority cues, and confidence asymmetry. Empirical evaluation across diverse proprietary and open-source backbones reveals that while isolated models reliably reject unsafe guidance, standard MAD catastrophically capitulates to social pressure---surging unsafe adoption from 0.0\% up to 100.0\% and systematically silencing safe minority evidence. To resolve this systemic fragility without retraining or debate regeneration, we propose RiskTrace-Debias, an inference-time auditing framework uniting evidence-first precommitment, social-metadata masking, and consistency-gated arbitration. RiskTrace-Debias suppresses worst-case unsafe adoption to $\le 2.0\%$ across all architectures without inducing over-refusal, while generating verifiable provenance traces to audit interpersonal manipulation in Web deliberation.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Cryptography & Security
Swapping the Judge Changes the Ranking: A Preregistered Study of Cross-Provider Replication in LLM-Judged System Comparisons
Sure Enough to Share? Overconfidence in GenAI Video Discernment is Associated with Sharing Intentions
Palimpsestic Accountability in the US Federal AI Inventories
Thick Alignment: A Social Framework for Values and AI Systems
From Guidelines to Practice: Defining Requirements for AI Red-Teaming Tools
Get the few papers worth your time in Cryptography & Security every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.