Measuring and Mitigating Rapport Bias of Large Language Models under Multi-Agent Social Interactions
Authors: Maojia Song
Tej Deep Pala
Ruiwen Zhou
Weisheng Jin
Amir Zadeh
Chuan Li
Dorien Herremans
Soujanya Poria
Venue: ICLR 2026 Poster (2026)
Keywords: Multi-Agent Systems (MAS)
Social Influence & Trust Formation
Primary area: alignment, fairness, safety, privacy, and societal considerations
TL;DR: We introduce a benchmark and training strategies to study and improve how LLMs interact with peers in multi-agent settings, balancing trust, self-confidence, and resistance to social biases.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems (MAS) as components of collaborative intelligence, where peer interactions dynamically shape individual decision-making. While prior work has largely focused on conformity bias, we broaden the scope to examine how LLMs build rapport from previous interactions, resist misinformation, and integrate peer input during collaboration, which are key factors for achieving collective intelligence under complex social dynamics. We introduce KAIROS, a benchmark simulating quiz contests with peer agents of varying reliability, offering fine-grained control over conditions such as expert–novice roles, noisy crowds, and adversarial peers. LLMs receive both historical interactions and current peer responses, allowing systematic investigation into how rapport, peer action, and self-confidence influence decisions. To mitigate this vulnerability, we evaluate prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) across multiple models. Our results show that model size plays a central role in moderating susceptibility to social influence: larger models exhibit stronger resilience and benefit from prompting-based mitigation, whereas smaller models are more vulnerable. For the latter, carefully configured GRPO training improves both robustness and overall performance. Our code and datasets are available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/KAIROS-4F71

MEASURING AND MITIGATING RAPPORT BIAS OF LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS UNDER MULTI-AGENT SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
Maojia Song"
Tej Deep Pala'
Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)
Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
Ruiwen Zhou
Weisheng Jin
National University of Singapore (NUS)
Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)
Amir Zadeh, Chuan Li Lambda Labs
Dorien Herremans
Singapore University Technology and Design (SUTD)
Soujanya Poriat
Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
ABSTRACT
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into aulti-agent sys- tems (MAS), where peer interactions shape individual decisions. While prior work has mainly examined conformity bias, we broaden the view to include how LLMs build rapport from prior interactions, discern and integrate high-quality peer in- formation, and resist misleading inputs-abilities essential for achieving collec- tive intelligence under complex social dynamics. We introduce KAIROS, bench- mark that simulates quiz-style collaboration with peer agents whose rapport lev- els and behaviors can be precisely controlled in both historical interactions and the current round. This unified setup enables systematic analysis of how rapport, peer actions, and the model's self-confidence jointly influence decision-making. Using KATROS, we evaluate prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforce- ment learning via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Results show that model scale is primary factor moderating susceptibility to social influence: larger models are more resilient and benefit from prompting-basee mitigation, whereas smaller models remain vulnerable. Only carefully configured GRPO training yields consistent robustness and performance gains for small models. Our code and datasets available at: https//anoyyynooos........eeeeer
INTRODUCTION
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into multi-agent systems (MAS), where they must interact, reason, and collaborate with other agents Chen et al. (2024b); Tran et al. (025)). However, like humans, LLMs vulnerable to social and cognitive biases such as conformity, overconfidence, and herd behaviour Piatti et al. (2024): Weng et al. (005): Yan et al. 2025). When exposed to peer responses, LLMs may adjust their outputs not only align with group consensus but also due to misplaced trust in unreliable agents Cho et al. (205). These tendencies pose a critical challenge in collective decision-making, where single flawed response propagate across agents, cascading through the system, and ultimately compromise the reliability of the entire multi-agent framework.
While prior studies have examined conformity in controlled, isolated settings Weng et al. (2025): :
Zhu et (2024), the field still lacks a comprehensive framework for simulating interactive social
"Equal contribution.
Corresponding author: soujanya, port wot.uunuuuue.. a@ntu.edu.sg.

---

environments and systematically evaluating LLM behaviour under varying conditions of rapport, current peer behaviour, and self-confidence. To fill this gap, we introduce KAIROS, a benchmark de- signed to assess LLMs in socially grounded, multi-agent scenarios. It simulates quiz-style multiple- choice contests in which the model engages with peer agents varying reliability, leveraging both historical rapport and its four metrics: accuracy, the overall task success rate; utility, the ability to correct its own errors with peer input; resistance, the ability to maintain correct judgments despite misleading peers; and robustness, the change in accuracy from the original to the socially influenced setting, capturing stability under social interaction.
confidence to make decisions. Model behaviour is evaluated using
Beyond measuring susceptibility to social cues, our aim is to identify mitigation strategies that enhance model performance in multi-agent social simulations. We investigate three approaches: prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning via GRPO. For GRPO, we systemat- ically vary four factors: system prompt design, reward structure, incorporation of multi-agent con- text, and data filtering strategies. Our results show that GRPO, when trained with carefully config- ured MAS signals and outcome-based rewards, substantially outperforms prompting and SFT base- lines, improving core task performance while preserving robustness against social perturbations. In contrast, alternative methods, though sometimes improving surface-level accuracy, often fail to gen- eralise across protocol shifts, revealing persistent weaknesses in social reasoning. These findings highlight that accuracy alone is insufficient; resilient reasoning under social interference remains a central challenge for multi-agent generalisation.
Our work provides a systematic evaluation of LLM performance in socially interactive, trust- sensitive settings. Our key contributions are:
We introduce a quiz-style multi-agent simulation that manipulates peer reliability, historical rapport, and self-confidence, enabling precise measurement how LLMs respond to complex social cues.
novel social-interaction benchmark:
comprehensive study of LLM social behaviour: We analyse model behaviours across ar- chitectures and training regimes, revealing patterns in interaction dynamics, trust sensitivity, and reward alignment in multi-agent environments.
A comparative evaluation of mitigation strategies: We examine prompting, supervised fine- tuning, and GRPO-based reinforcement learning under different configurations, finding that GRPO with outcome rewards and MAS context achieves the most robust gains.
2 KAIROS
We present multi-agent interactive benchmark, KATROS, designed to simulate socially grounded scenarios and assess [.I. behaviour within them. Unlike benchmarks focused solely on conformity Weng et al. (2025). KAIROS targets how LLMs interpret, utilise, or resist signals from other agents, even when they are clearly unreliable, based on perceived reliability, current social context, and self- confidence. We begin by describing the details of collecting dynamic evaluation data in Section 2.1 and then explaining the corresponding metrics in Section 2.2
2. DATA COLLECTION
A detailed breakdown of the training and evaluation datasets is presented in Figure I covering the four domains of Reasoning, Knowledge, Social, and Creativity. The datasets are carefully parti- tioned to ensure strict non-overlap and clear distributional shift between training and evaluation. Additional details are provided Appendix
Evaluation Dataset Source. evaluate models under realistic social dynamics, we draw bench- mark questions from diverse set of established datasets spanning four
Knowledge, Social, and Creativiry. The Reasoning domain combines logic reasoning Weng et al. 2025). filtered BGG-Bench Hard (Szgunn et al. (2022), code execution tasks from BeveChdeBench Jain et al. (2024). ) and level 4-5 problems from -50 et al. (2023). The Knowledge
Kairos is ancient Greek word meaning the right opportune moment, critical time for action.
2

---

Training dataset
Test dataset
NOW
Krowladge
437
att
Figure 1: Left: Training dataset (N=10,000). Right: Test dataset (N=3,000). The inner ring groups tasks by category Training: Reasoning 37.5%, Knowledge 21.1%, Social 20.8%, Creativity 20.5%; Test: Reasoning 33.3%, Knowledge 22.3%, Social 22.2%, Creativity 22.2%. The outer ring breaks each category into individual datasets; wedge labels give original instance counts.
domain uses TruthfulQ4 Lin et al. 22221 and MMLU-Pro Wang et al. (2024) to evaluate factual and broad-domain knowledge. The Social domain includes Commonsense(A 2.0 Talmor al. (2022) and Social 1Q Sap et al. (2019) for intuitive and socially grounded reasoning, Finally, the Creativity
domain incorporates MacGyver TTia al. (2024) for situational problem-solving and BrainTeaser Jiang et al. (2023) for lateral-thinking challenges.
All tasks are reformulated into unified multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) format. We adopt MCQA for its straightforward answer extraction and deterministic evaluation, in contrast to open-ended formats that require LLM-based judging and introduce additional uncertainty (see Ap- pendix F.1 for details). For originally open-ended datasets (e.g., LiveCodeBench, MATH-550)), we generate plausible distractors using Llama3.1-88 1-BB and validate them through automated checks and human review. The MacGyvvr dataset is converted into binary solvability judgment while retaining its creative reasoning characteristics.
Dynamic Evaluation Dataset Construction. To evaluate model's robustness in socially rich settings, we first infer its underlying beliefs-its preferred answer and corresponding confidence for each benchmark question. This allows us to construct tailored evaluation scenarios that probe the model's own epistemic commitments rather than relying on a fixed benchmark. As result, KAIROS is dynamically instantiated for each model, adapting to its responses and beliefs to stress-test its social reasoning.
Step 1: Extracting the Model's Original Beliefs We begin by presenting the model with the original benchmark question and recording direct output. From this output, we extract the discrete final answer label (e.g., "A", "B", "C", or "D"), which we refer to the model's original answer and treat as stated belief.
To estimate the model's confidence in this belief, we adopt sampling- bassed uncertainty estimation procedure similar to Consissets,, For each input x, we generate T full solutions using stochastic decoding and extract the final answer label E {1, (l...., K} from each generation:
These samples induce an empirical predictive distribution over options,
1 T k=
Dv.
p
k x)
Σ
1sye
k),
11,, I,....
K,
T
1=1
3

---

collectively denoted p. Confidence is quantified via the predictive entropy
H|p! Pk log Pk.
The model's s final belief taken to be the majority answer the option with the highest empirical probability under p. Finally, samples are categorized into high- or low-confidence by comparing their entropy the dataset-wide median: those above the median are labeled low-confidence and those below are labeled high-confidence.
Step 2: Simulating Social Scenarios with Targeted Interventions Once the model's belief, its predicted answer, and the associated confidence have been established, construct a multi-agent simulation to examine how it responds to social influence. Each simulation consists of two compo- nents: simulated interaction history and current question round.
The interaction history mimics prior rounds of quiz-style contest. For each past round. we provide the previous questions, the model's own answers, and the responses of peer agents. This context allows us to simulate the buildup of agent-speciff rapport based on how consistently each peer has aligned with the evaluated model's prior answers.
In the current round, the model is given new question along with responses from peer agents that are intentionally crafted to either align with or challenge its previously expressed belief. This alignment is defined along three behavioural modes: support, oppose-hard, and oppose-easy. If the model's s original answer correct, support agents reinforce it by repeating the correct answer, oppose-hard agents challenge it by selecting the most plausible incorrect option, and oppose-easy agents offer minimal resistance by selecting the least plausible incorrect answer. Conversely, the model's answer is incorrect, support agents echo the same incorrect response, oppose-han hard agents provide a different but highly plausible incorrect alternative, and oppose-eat agents present the cor- rect answer. This targeted construction allows systematically assess how the model responds to both reinforcing and contradicting social signals.
simulate varying degrees of social pressure and
Taken together, this setup allows KAIROS probe three key axes of model's s social sensitivity:
Peer Agent Rapport Level: By manipulating the degree to which past peer answers agree with the model's own history (ranging from 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%), KAIROS evaluates how perceived reliability and social closeness modulate the model's trust in others.
Peer Agent Behaviour in the Current Round: Because peer responses are constructed directly from the model's belief distribution in Step 1, their support, oppose-hard, or oppose-easy be- haviours constitute a model-tailored stress test. This allows to examine how the model handles aligned versus adversarial signals conditioned on its own epistemic commitments.
Self-Belief Strength: By conditioning interventions on the model's estimated confidence (high vs. low entropy), KATROS tests whether self-belief moderates susceptibility to social influence-i.e. whether uncertainty increases conformity and high confidence supports resistance.
This formulation enables a structured examination of how peer agreement, perceived trustworthi- ness, and the model's s own self-belief jointly shape behaviour under social pressure. Because peer responses are derived from each model's belief distribution, every model encounters tailored in- stantiation of KAIROS. To enable cross-model comparison despite differing baselines, we propose normalized robustness metrics that quantify behavioural shifts under social interaction.
2.2 EVALUATION METRICS
Accuracy and Robustness. We adopt accuracy as one of the primary evaluation metrics. Rather than solely reporting the model's performance under the Original and KAIROS settings indepen- dently, also examine the difference between the two-ret referrfe to as the O-K change rate, denoted as O-K A. This metric captures how the model's 's accuracy influenced by the introduction of social signals in the multi-agent setting:
O-KA Accuracy
Accuracy Original
Accuracy Original
4

---

History
Jane brikg buck apples, and furn bakes somy L. What io net change the tural sumberr of applecc
Majority Answer
Action
Squetiker
Ipurstan 21
Rappartiona E.t
Confieace Cxtmuuion
Peer Resporaes
appliss
Original Evaluation
Peer Construction
KAIROS Evaluation
Figure 2: Overview the KATROS evaluation framework. The process begins with Original Evalua- tion, where question is posed and the majority answer is derived from multiple generations, along with confidence estimation. In Peer Construction, the subject agent's 's majority answer and predefined action type (e.g., support) are used to construct interactions with other agents. Finally, in KAIROS Evaluation, each agent considers historical context, the current question, and peer responses to gen- erate nocially-informed answer within multi-agent system (MAS), which is then assessed using various evaluation metrics (e.g., accuracy & robustness, utility, and resistance).
This metric allows to quantify whether and how social interaction dynamics affect the model's performance. We also call O-K A the metric of robustness.
Utility Resistance. Let N be the total number of instances. For a given model M, define for each instance
1,
M is correct under Original evaluation on instance i, otherwise
1, M is correct under KAIROS evaluation on instance i, otherwise
y/s
We define two complementary measures of model M's performance under the KAIROS evaluation. The utility UM quantifies the fraction of instances that were originally incorrect but become cor- rect under KAIROS, while the resistance RM captures the fraction of instances that were originally correct and remain correct. Formally,
N 21 11, = 0A
N Disl 1(x; = 11 [0,1].
UM
[0,
RM
EM 11, 03
M 1x,-11 =1
2.3 WIYY ROBUSTNESS MATTERS IN MULTI-AGENT SETTINGS
While accuracy improvements are important, robustness the stability of performance between the Original and KAIROS evaluations is equally crucial. A widening gap between the two signals heightened sensitivity to social context. This fragility raises several concerns:
Unreliability in MAS: Multi-agent systems require agents to maintain consistent reasoning de- spite peer influence. Large negative O-KA values indicate that an agent correct in isolation may change its answer when exposed to others, undermining overall system reliability.
Vulnerability to Social Pressure: Models generally lose more correct predictions than they gain from peer corrections, suggesting they are more easily swayed into errors than guided toward better answers. This mirrors human social pitfalls and enables mistake propagation across agents.
5

---

Reinforcement learning often increases surface-level accuracy while widen- ing the Original-KAnn KAIROS gap, revealing overfitting to evaluation formats. Without robustness, accuracy gains fail to generalise under distributional social shifts.
Hidden Brittleness:
System-Level Risk: In collective settings, socially induced emor by agent cascade through the group, amplifying misinformation and destabilising shared outputs. Such susceptibil- ities also open new avenues for adversarial manipulation.
Robustness is therefore not secondary to accuracy but fundamental requirement for deploying LLMs in multi-agent environments. Improving accuracy without ensuring robustness risks creat- ing systems that perform well controlled benchmarks yet falter in realistic, socially entangled conditions.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
3.1 MITIGATION STRATEGIES
To improve the robustness of LLMs in socially interactive environments, examine three cat- egories of mitigation strategies-Prompiing Supervised Tunnig (SFT), and Reinforcement Learning via Group Relative Policy Optimisation (GRPO)-each designed strengthen the model's ability to reason accurately while managing peer influence in multi-agent settings. For clarity, all comparisons are made against the same base model per family, and every SFT or GRPO variant within that family is fine-tuned from this same Base checkpoint.
3.1.1 PROMPTING
Following Weng et al. (2025), we also explore two different prompting strategies: Empowered and Reflective.
Empowered Prompting: The LLM is prompted with an empowered persona, encouraging confi- dence and autonomy its decision decision-making, The prompt reinforces the idea that the model should critically evaluate peer responses and not blindly follow peer responses.
After generating an initial response, the LLM is prompted again to reflect on and revise its answer based on the same context. This method aims to encourage checking for inconsistencies negative influence from other agents.
Reflective Prompting:
3.1.2 SUPERVISED FINE- TUNING (SFT)
We construct supervised training using templated gold responses derived from the ground truth for each question. Each instance of training data includes the full social context: the current question, peer responses, interaction history, and the LLM's previous responses and the correct answer. The model is fine-tuned for one epoch to encourage it to learn strategies to navigate peer influence while maintaining factual correctness.
3.1.3 REINFORCEMENT LEARNING
We use GRPO to align the LLM's s behavior with desirable social reasoning patterns. We experiment with several configurations to assess how different modeling choices affect the model's performance in interactive multi-agent environments. More details are elaborated in Appendix
1. Multi-Agent vs. Non-Multi-Agent Context: In the MAS configuration, training inputs include the full history of prior questions and peer agent responses, teaching the model navigate social interference while improving task performance. In contrast, the Non-MAS setting removes all social context, serving as a control setup to test whether simply improving a model's competence reduces its susceptibility to peer influence.
2. System Prompt:
We explore two different system prompts. The Normal (NS) prompt instructs the model to reason before answering the question. The Debating (DS) system prompt encourages the model to debate in structured internal dialogue before generating response.

---

3. Reward Function: We explore two types of rewards: (1) Outcome-based Reward (OR). which rewards the model solely based on the correctness of its final answer, and (2) Debating Reward (DR), which incentivizes diverse, multi-turn debate-style reasoning in addition to final answer correctness. For DR, we enforce a structured reasoning format, where the model must articu- late its thoughts in the form "Adject vel voice:
" and "Ad i ve2 vo ce: We use embedding similarity to ensure that the chosen adjectives are semantically dissim- ilar, thereby encouraging the model reason from multiple, distinct viewpoints.
4. Data Filtering: To focus training on challenging scenarios, we experiment with two different data filters: (1) Low Confidence (LConf) Training samples where the model's original confidence in its answer is below the median, and (2) Low Correctness (LCorr) samples where the model originally answered incorrectly.
3.2 TRAINING DATASET CONSTRUCTION FOR MITIGATION STRATEGIES
To avoid contamination and enforce strict train-test separation, we construct the training set from disjoint sources spanning the same domains KAIROS: reasoning, knowledge, social, & creativity.
Includes BBH Suzgun et al. (2022) and LiveCodeBench Jain et al. (2024) both used under strict train test split to avoid data leakage- along with Math Amiii al. (2019) for math
Reasoning:
word problems and Winogrande (Sakaguchi et al.. (2021) for commonsense reasoning. Knowledge: Uses PopQA |aalenn al. (2022) and SimpleQA Wei et al. (2024) for factual question answering. Social: Combines Social Yuan et al. (2024) and Moral Stories Emelin et al. (202I) to promote understanding of social norms and moral reasoning. Creativity: Incorporates ProtoQA Boratko al.
2020) for prototypical reasoning and RiddleSense for metaphorical comprehension.
We process all datasets in the same way as KAIROS. For each interaction history, we ensure bal- anced mix of round types (both support and oppose). In open- open-ended datasets such as SimpleQA, distractor answers are generated automatically. More details can be found in Appendix
RESULTS
4.1
OVERALL RESULTS
Table rreports results for 11 models evaluated on KAIROS across different prompting strategies. We observe distinct behaviors between smaller (I 32B) and larger (> 32B) models. Under empowered prompting, smaller models exhibit performance gains in both Original (f 4.37%) and KAIROS (1 0.95%) settings. However, because the improvement in isolated performance outpaces the gains in social contexts, this strategy paradoxically exacerbates the robustness gap (O K A). This suggests that while empowerment helps elicit latent capabilities in smaller models, it does not proportionally enhance resilience to social interference.
In contrast, larger models show saturation in Original accuracy under base prompting, leaving lim- ited room for improvement (4 0.08%); consequently, empowerment primarily boosts KAIROS accu- racy (f 3. 3.10),, effectively closing the robustness gap and resulting in positive A. Finally, reflected prompting proves detrimental for smaller models, degrading KAIROS performance (4 2.83%) and widening the robustness gap compared to the base setting, likely due to hallucinations or confusion induced during the self-reflection process. Larger models remain relatively stable under reflection but still underperform compared to the empowered setting.
4.2 DETAILED RESULTS
Beyond prompting, we also examine training- baaiing-bbsed mitigation strategies for improving robustness to social interference. Due to computational constraints, limit SFT and GRPO experiments mod- els under 32B parameters, Detailed dataset-level results are provided in Table g II while Table 2 presents consolidated comparison.
GRPO Boosts Accuracy But Not Robustness. As shown in Table training with GRPO con- sistently improves both Original and KAIROS performance compared to Supervised Fine- Munnnnunng (SFT). On average, GRPO yields +12.3% gain in Original accuracy and + +16.4% gain in KAIROS
7

---

Base
Empowered
Reflected
Models
Original (1)
KAIRoS
0.A(t (t)
Original (11
RAIRoS (1)
Originzl (t)
KAIROS (t)
O-K.mh (t)
Qwen2.5-35
47.93%
48.77%
+2.4%
56.06%
47.87%
-14.6%
47.93%
47.27%
-1.4%
Qwen2.5-7B
58.50%
52.27%
-10.0%
65.74%
54.07%
17.8 87.8%
58.50%
55.33%
-5.4%
Qwen2.5-12
64.00%
58.43%
-8.7%
68.23%
62.50%
-8.4%
64.00%
19.19%
-7.5%
Llama322-3B
47.90%
43.81%
-7.8%
48.43%
44.70%
-7.7%
47.90%
38.40%
-19,8%
Llama3.1-88
56,50%
52.54%
-7.0%
61.03%
53.04%
-13.1%
56.50%
40.59%
28.1%
Llama3.3-700 30B
67.97%
68.17%
+0.3%
68.47%
69.60%
+1.6%
67.97%
66.80% 86.
-1.7%
QWen2.5-322
69.30%
67.37%
-2.8%
70.90%
66.73%
-5.9%
69.30%
65.43%
-5.6%
QWen2.5-722
69.33%
69.43%
+0.1%
69.23%
71.07%
+2.7%
69.33%
68.73%
-0.9%
GPT-OSS 120B
86.67%
80.87%
-6.7%
87.20%
83.97%
+3.7%
86.67%
85.47%
-1.4%
Gemini-2.5-Pro
89.33%
79.93%
-1055%
88.23%
88.17%
-0.1%
89.33%
87. 7..50%
-2.0%
GPT-5
90.17%
88, 90%
-1,4%
89 89,90%
90.00%
+0.1%
90.17%
90.03%
0.1%
Avg (L.LMs & 328)
57.36%
53.87%
-5.65%
61.73%
54.82%
-11.25%
57. 57.36%
51.04%
-11.30%
Avg (L.LMs > 328)
80.69%
77.46%
-3.64%
80.61%
80.56%
+0.125
80.89%
79.71
-1.22%
Table I: Evaluation of model robustness under KAIROS. The table summarises Original and KAIROS accuracies and their relative O-K A (percentage change) across multiple model families, sizes, over prompting strategies. The maximum and minimum O-K A values are highlighted in bold.
Type
Owen2.5.2 3-38
Qwen2.5-78
Qwen2.5-141
3.2.8
LLama3, 1-88
Orginel
Diginnl
Orggnal
Original
Origina
Base Engowered
47.9
48.8
-10.6
56.1
47.9
-14.6
65.7
56.1
-17.7
68.2
62.5
44.7
-7.7
61.00
53.0
-13.1
Reflected
47.9
47.3
-1.4
58.5
55.3
-3.4
64.0
59.2
-7.5
47.9
38.4
-19.8
36.5
30.5
-28.1
SET
50.1
16.9
-6.5
56.7
44.0
-22.4
65.3
48.8
-25.3
45.0
39.4
-12.6
-9,33
42.1
-14.5
SXPO-MAA-DDS.IA DR
54.8
51.7
-5.7
66.6
62.0
-6.9
75.6
69.5
-8.0
51.1
26.1
-9.8
00.4
55.7
-7.9
GRPO MAS DS DR LCoof
52.5
48.8
-1.0
63.4
54,3
-14,4
70.1
60.9
-13.2
51.7
44.7
-13.5
58.7
52.3
-10.9
PETD-MAS-DDS-R-LCCO
55.6
47.5
-146
68.6
-3333
-11.7
60.8
47.6
GRPO-MAN PEO--MA-DS--O
57.4
52.8
73.3
70.3
58.3
56.4
-333
GRPO-MAS-NS-OR
61.7
57.9
-11
70.3
65.5
.88
76.4
71.5
-65
35.7
51.3
-3.0
61.8
57.3
-10.2
GRPO noMMAS DS DR
57.6
51.3
-11.0
64.5
59.3
8.0
72.8
62.5
-141
55.5
45,0
19.0
59.3
89.1
-17.2
MaPO-nunMAS DS OR
56.3
50.8
-.7
65.6
56.4
-17.8
71.
65.8
-7.4
55.5
44.2
-2044
55.9
$1.6
-1.7
UXPO-nomMAS-NS--00 NS-
02.7
53.8
-14.2
72.7
513
20.7
77.5
65.5
-1..6
58.2
50.2
-13.6
63.8
56.1
-12.0
Table 2: Comparison of Original accuracy, KAIROS accuracy, and O-K A across different models and mitigation configurations. For each model family, all SFT and GRPO variants are fine-tuned from the same Base checkpoint, enabling consistent comparison how prompting, SFT, and GRPO influence robustness under social interaction.
accuracy, confirming that reinforcement learning enhances models' ability to operate in socially interactive settings where passive imitation alone insufficient.
These gains, however, are not uniform across robustness. While many GRPO-trained models achieve higher accuracy at the expense of robustness, some variants, particularly those trained with MAS context, also yield robustness improvements. This indicates that GRPO enhances competence over- all, but its effect on resilience social pressure depends on how the training context is structured.
MAS Context Enhances Both Performance and Robustness. Integrating Multi-Agent System (MAS) context during GRPO training not only yields higher KAIROS accuracy but also maintains robustness levels comparable to the base model. This effect is particularly pronounced when paired with the DS-OR (Debating System prompt with outcome reward) reward scheme, where the av- erage robustness (O-K A) improves by +1% on robustness is scale-dependent: while small models (3B) exhibit an average robustness drop of about 4%. larger models instead gain roughly 4%. In contrast, non-MAS GRPO configurations, while sometimes strong in original accuracy, show degraded robustness. These findings underscore the importance of training a social context, especially for larger models, in order to maintain generalization and behavioral stability.
base. Interestingly, the impact of MAS setting
NS-OR Configuration Yields Best Accuracy-Robustnee Robustness Trade-off. Among GRPO setups, the Normal System + Outcome-based Reward (NS-OR) configuration consistently achieves the highest original (65.6%) and KAIROS (60.7%) accuracy across models. Importantly, it does so while pre- serving robustness comparable to the base model. The free-form reasoning encouraged by NS-OR, without enforced internal debate, seems to offer both a clear optimization target and generalizable behavior.
8

---

Filtering by Confidence Helps Accuracy but Harms Robustness. Data filtering improves over- all performance but presents a trade-off in robustness. Using Low Confidence (LConf) samples outperforms Low Conrectness (LCorr) in KAIROS tasks, with the latter resulting in up 15% drops in performance. While ICCof preserves more stable accuracy, both methods lead to worse O-K A values compared to the base model. This suggests that while filtering removes unhelpful data, it may also reduce the diversity needed for robust generalisation.
Across our experiments, find that while various training strategies significantly improve both original and protocol accuracy, they often conceal a deeper fragility in social reasoning. Performance drops sharply when models move from original to protocol settings, revealing challenges in handling social interference and peer dynamics. Though prompting and data filtering boost surface-level ac- curacy, they often worsen this brittleness. Only training under MAS conditions with outcome-driven rewards achieves both high accuracy and robustness. This underscores a central challenge: improv- ing accuracy is not enough-row reasoning under social perturbation remains a key obstacle to multi-agent generalisation.
Key Takeaways
GRPO improves accuracy over SFT, but can reduce robustness in certain settings.
Incorporating social context (MAS) during GRPO training boosts accuracy and, for larger models, enhances robustness, while smaller models may experience a drop.
Debate-style reasoning enforced through system prompts or rewards shows no improve- ments in robustness or accuracy, suggesting models benefit more from simpler objectives.
4.3 ANALYSIS ON TRANSITION EFFECT AND PEER IMPRESSION
We analyze how LLMs behave under multi-agent social context, focusing on two phenomena: (1) how models transition between correct and incorrect answers when exposed to peer input, and (2) how prior rapport with peers shapes the strength of social influence. A detailed breakdown is pro- vided in Appendix D
Models Lose More Correct Answers Than They Gain. Across models and training regimes, we observe a consistent net accuracy drop when moving from the initial context to the multi-agent setting. This arises because losses from incorrect transitions (correct wrong) outweigh the gains from utility transitions (wrong + correct), Resistance transitions (correct + correct) dominate over- all accouion for roughly 65% of all transitions-indicainng structural bias toward preserving initial judgments rather than revising them. Training modulates this balance: SFT in- creases error correction but reduces resistance confidence, while GRPO restores strong resistance but suppresses utility confidence (e.g.. Qwen-14B utility drops from 0.737 to 0.167). Larger mod- els generally show stronger resistance and utility than smaller ones, though training narrows these scale-driven advantages. Despite these improvements, models still struggle to confidently and sys- tematically revise erroneous beliefs based on peer signals.
Rapport Modulates Peer Influence. Prior rapport systematically alters how models respond to current peer behavior. Higher rapport increases resistance in SUPPORT settings-making models more likely maintain a correct answer when peers agree-but decreases resistance OPPOSE- HARD and OPPOSE-EASY. where high rapport amplifies conformity to incorrect peers. Utility transi- tions show the opposite trend, indicating that rapport affects action selection rather than confidence. Across model families, this produces persistent asymmetry: models over-trust supportive peers and underperform when required to reject misleading consensus, with an average 31.7-point resis- tance gap between SUPPORT and OPPOSE-IIARD. Training further shapes these dynamics: GRPO strengthens both resistance and utility under challenging opposition, whereas SFT improves be- havior in easier settings but degrades performance in harder corrective scenarios. Overall, rapport acts as a powerful modulator of social influence, amplifying agreement tendencies and revealing a systematic vulnerability misleading group consensus.

---

4.4 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
We provide supplementary analyses in Appendix covering the evaluation differences between MCQ and open-ended formats, the impact of historical rapport on model behaviour, and how the model's confidence on history questions shapes its current decisions.
5
RELATED WORK
5.1 COGNITIVE BIASES IN MULTI-AGENT SYSTEMS
Recent studies show that AI systems, especially large language models (LLMs), can develop and even amplify human-like cognitive biases, affecting reasoning and decision-making in both indi- viduals and groups Chen et al. (2024ap; (haai et (2023). For example, agents align with group consensus even when it's incorrect Liu al. (2025); Cho et al. (2025). However, these studies do not address how to reduce such behaviours or manage complex social dynamics. To bridge this gap, KAIROS offers framework to evaluate how fine-tuning and reinforcement learning affect model performance in socially interactive settings.
5.2 EXISTING BENCHIMARKS FOR CONFORMITY
Existing benchmarks examine conformity bias in LLMs mainly through factual or logical QA and prompt- based debiasing Zhu et al. (2024); Weng et al. (025). While these methods measure align- ment with ground truth, they neglect broader cognitive skills like creative groblem-solving and so- cial reasoning. Our KAIROS benchmark fills this gap by extending evaluation to creativity and social understanding. also provides fine-gre tne-grained control over interactions, allowing systematic manipu- lation of social variables and deeper analysis of model behaviour in multi-agent settings
CONCLUSION
In this work, expand the notion of social bias to encompass how large language models (LLMs) form rapport, resist misinformation, and selectively integrate peer input in social contexts to improve task performance abiiiiiie-ailliiiss critical for collaboration in future multi-agent systems (MAS). To in- vestigate this, we introduce KAIROS that systematically considers peer rapport levels, peer actions, and the model's own confidence. We find that current LLMs still struggle to resist external misinfor- mation and incorporate peer input to correct their errors. In addition, we explore multiple training drrateges--incuudee prompting, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning under various configurations. Our results show that reinforcement learning with simple outcome-based reward and unconstrained reasoning achieves the highest absolute performance in MAS settings, but at the cost of reduced relative robustness.
10

---

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by A$STAR SERC CRF funding to C.T. This work also sup- ported by the National Research Foundation, Singapore, under its National Large Language Models Funding Initiative (AISG Award No: AISG-NMLP-2024-005), NTU SUG project #025628- 00001.
REFERENCES
Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. MathQA:
Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume (Long and Short Papers), pp. 2357-2367, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019, Association for Computational Lin- guistics. doi: 10. 18.18v33/v1 1//81////111/-1/-// 1/N19- 124.. URL URL. 1245
Michael Boratko. Xiang Li, Tim O' G'rrman, Rajarshi Das, Dan Le, and Andrew Mccallum. Protoqa: A question answering dataset for prototypical common-sens. reasoning. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 1122- 1136, 2020.
Nuo Chen, Jiqun Liu, Xiaoyu Dong, Qijiong Liu, Tetsuya Sakai, and Xiao-Ming Wu. Ai can be cognitively biased: An exploratory study threshold priming in lim-based batch relevance sessment. In Proceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Reirieval in the Asia Pacific Region, pp. 54-63, 2024a.
Shuaihang Chen, Yuanxing Liu, Wei Han, Weinan Zhang, and Ting Liu. A survey Ilm- based multi-agent system: Recent advances and new frontiers in application. arXiv preprint 178441 2024b.
Young-Min Cho. Sharath Chandra Guntuku, and Lyle Ungar. Herd behavior: Investigating peer influence llm-based multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21588 2025.
Denis Emelin, Ronan Le Bras, Jena D. Hwang, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. Moral stories: Situated reasoning about norms, intents, actions, and their consequences, ArXiv, abs/2012.15738. 2021.
Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21788, 2024.
Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang. Armando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.077 079744. 2024.
Yifan Jiang, Filip llievski, Kaixin Ma. and Zhivar Sourati. Brainteaser: Lateral thinking puzzles for large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023.
Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and lon Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2023.
Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050. 2023.
Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. 2021.
Xuan Liu, Jie Zhang, Haoyang Shang, Song Guo, Chengxu Yang, and Quanyan Zhu. Exploring prosocial irrationality for Ilm agents: A social cognition view, 2025. URL httpss//arrxi..or//abb// 14744
11

---

Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint. 2022.
Giorgio Piatti, Zhijing Jin, Max Kleiman- Weiner, Bernhard Schölkopf, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Rada Mihalcea. Cooperate or collapse: Emergence of sustainability behaviors in a society of Il agents. CoRR, 2024.
Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. Winogrande: An adver- sarial winograd schema challenge at scale. Communications of the ACM, 64(9):99-106, 2021.
Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan LeBras, and Yejin Choi. Socialiga: Common- sense reasoning about social interactions, 2019. URL http://gs//arrw..r////////0..00.
Jonathan Shaki, Sarit Kraus, and Michael Wooldridge. Cognitive effects in large language models. In ECA! 2023, pp. 2105-2112. IOS Press, 2023.
Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, and Jason Wei. Challenging big- bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint urXiv:2210.09200 2022.
Alon Talmor, Ori Yoran, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yoav Goldberg, Yejin Choi, and Jonathan Berant. Commonsenseqa 2.0: Exposing the limits of ai through gamification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.0555 005320, 2022.
Qwen Team. Qwen2.5: A party foundation models, September 2024. URL URL http::////////nln.iiini io/blog/gwen2.5//
Yufei Tian, Abhilasha Ravichander, Lianhui Qin, Ronan Le Bras, Raja Marjich, Nanyun Peng, Yejin Choi, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Faeze Brahman. Macgyver: Are large language models creative problem solvers? In Proceedings of NAACL, 2024. URL httpssss/aari..rr////31111..6...
Khanh- Tung Tran, Dung Dao, Minh-Duong Nguyen, Quoc- Viet Pham, Barry O'Sullivan, and Hoang D Nguyen. Multi-agent collaboration mechanisms: A survey of 1lms. arXiv preprint 20Xiv:2500.06322.. 2025.
Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. arXiv preprint arxiv:2406001574. 2024.
Jason Wei, Nguyen Karina, Hyung Won Chung, Yunxin Joy Jiao, Spencer Papay, Amelia Glaese, John Schulman, and William Fedus. Measuring short-form factuality in large language models, 2024. URL Utt.attts///aa....g////11..111.1
Zhiyuan Weng, Guikun Chen, and Wenguan Wang. Do as we do, not as you think: the conformity of large language models, 2025. URL http:ss/aarii.oog/////55...1331
Bingyu Yan, Zhibo Zhou, Litian Zhang, Lian Zhang, Ziyi Zhou, Dezhuang Miao, Zhoujun Li, Chaozhuo Li, and Xiaoming Zhang. Beyond self-talk: A communication-centtie survey of 1mm- based multi aueti-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502. 14321, 2025.
Ye Yuan, Kexin Tang, Jianhao Shen, Ming Zhang, and Chenguang Wang. Measuring social norms of large language models. In NAACL, 2024.
Xiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Tom Stafford, Nigel Collier, and Andreas Vlachos. Conformity in large language models. arXiv preprint 2xXv:22410.12288 2024.
12

---

Appendix
Table of Contents
Data Construction Details
14
B Implementation details
15
B.1 Debating RL design
16
B.2 Models and Hyperparameters
17
Dataset-Specific Effects MAS Dynamics
17
D Transition Analysis
18
D.1 Overall Transition Effect
19
D.2 Interaction Between Prior Rapport and Social Signals
21
E
Qualitative Case Studies
21
E.1 Case Explicit Social Reasoning and Cognitive Dissonance
21
B.2
Case Implicit Influence and Reasoning Drift
22
F Additional Analysis
22
F.1
Effect of MCQ vs. Open Ended Formats
22
Analysis of Active History and Confidence Elfects
23
Comprehensive Evaluation and Analysis Results
24
LLMs Usage
34
13

---

A DATA CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
To comprehensively assess and train our models under realistic social dynamics, we organise our data into two main parts. First, we compile an evaluation collection covering four key dimen- reasonnn,,,,, knowledge, Social, and creativity- to probe model behaviour across logical, fac- tual, intuitive, and creative tasks. Second, we assemble a distinct training set drawn from separate sources in the same four domains, ensuring no overlap and a clear distributional shift, The following paragraphs describe the sources and processing steps for each of these collections detail.
Evaluation Dataset Source. Inspired by the limitations of prior work Weng et al. (2025), we aim to move beyond datasets focused solely on logical reasoning. Instead, we expand the evaluation to more diverse scenarios to assess model performance under more realistic social dynamics. Specifi- cally, we collect datasets from four categories: reasoning, knowledge, Social, and creativity.
For the reasoning category, we include logic reasoning tasks from Weng et al. (025), filtered sam- ples from the BIG-Bench Hard dataset (Suzgun et al. (2022), code execution and test output predic- tion tasks from dataset Lightman et al. (2023). This selection ensures that model reasoning is not limited to logic inference, but also lncludes prediction and parallel mathematical thinking. In the knowledge cate- gory, use TruthfulQA Lin et al. (202I), which focuses fact-based questions and challenges the model's 's parametric knowledge, and MMLU-Pro Waan et al. (2024), which evaluates performance across a broad range of general-domain knowledge. To assess Social, employ CommonsenseeA 2.0 Talmor et al. (2022) for basic factual commonsense, and additionally incorporate Social IQ Sap al. (2019) to simulate scenarios involving social behaviour, thereby broadening the coverage of everyday inference tasks. Finally, for the creativity dimension, we introduce datasets that evaluate the model's ability generate socially relevant and imaginative responses. We use MacGyver Tian et al. 22024) which focuses on situational advice, and BrainTeaser Jiang et al. (023). which tar- gets lateral thinking challenges. This multifaceted dataset collection enables a more comprehensive evaluation of models across logical, factual, intuitive, and imaginative aspects of social cognition.
Benchhddeeennnnnnn et al. (2024), as well as level 4-5 problems from the MATH-500
We then convert each selected dataset into multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) format. For naturally multiple-choice datasets, this conversion is trivial. For open-ended benchmarks such as LiveCodeBench
JJaic Jain et al. (2024) and -AAT-5000LLighhman et al. (2023), we generate distractor op- tions by prompting 1.mma..1-8 with the original question and collecting distinct incorrect answers that differ from the ground truth. These automatically generated distractors are then subjected to both automated consistency checks and human review to ensure plausibility. For MacGyver (Tin et al. (2024), which is originally an open- open-ended situational-adviti task, we recast it as a binary solvability judgment by asking the model to Judge whether the following problem is solvable. This reframing preserves the requirement for creative reasoning: a model capable of devising a valid solution should likewise assess its feasibility.
Training Dataset Construction. To prevent data contamination and ensure clear distributional shift between training and evaluation, we construct the training dataset from distinct sources, cate- gorised into four domains: reasoning, knowledge, social, and creativity.
In the reasoning domain, we continue to use a portion of source questions from BBH Suzgun et al. (2022) and LiveCodeBench Jain et al. (2024), both benchmarks offer representative and diverse reasoning challenges. Although they appear in both training and evaluation, we enforce strict train-test split to avoid any data leakage. For BBH, the evaluation set contains filtered subset of logical-reasoning tasks, whereas the training set uses a separate collection of reasoning samples. LiveCodeBench is handled analogously, with mutually exclusive problem sets ensuring that no prompt or solution overlaps between phases. Beyond these datasets, we also incorporate MathQA Amini et al. (219), a multiple-choice math word problem dataset paired with executable programs, to strengthen mathematical reasoning, as well as Winogrande (Sakaguchi et al. (2021). large-scale commonsense reasoning benchmark based on Winograd-style pronoun resolution tasks. For the knowledge category, we utilise PopQA Mallen et al. (2022). an open-domain QA bench- mark grounded in Wikidata and designed to train factual recall, and SimpleQA Wei et al. (2024). a short-form factual question answering dataset with single-entity answers. In the social domain, use both Social Yuan et al. (2024), which are datasets teaching reasoning about social norms and relationships, and Moral Stories Emelin et al. 202T), which contains narratives requiring models
14

---

to infer moral choices and socially acceptable actions. These datasets selected to train reflective and socially sensitive reasoning behaviours. Finally, in the creativity domain, we use ProtoQA [o- ratko et al. (2020), dataset inspired by Family Feud where models must generate multiple plausible answers ranked by common sense likelihood, encouraging associative and prototypical reasoning. RiddleSense complements this by presenting riddles requiring indirect metaphorical language understanding.
All datasets processed analogously the evaluation setup. Since SimpleQA Wei et (2024) is an open-ended dataset without incorrect options, we generate distractor answers for each question using a pipeline similar to that used for LiveCodeBench Jain al. (2024) and Math-500 Lightman et al. (2023) in the evaluation.
Dynamic KAIROS Construction To complement the description in Section 2.1 We outlines the dynamic data construction pipeline, showing how different configurations are varied and how the benchmark is tailored to target model's specific parametric beliefs.
Algorithm I: KAIROS Social Simulation
Require: Model M, Questions Q, #Agents N, History length R
1: Q +
2: for all q do
< M(q) 4: C esstimale..omffdeeeee....
3:
Original answer
correct <- is.comeet((ar))
Build simulated history of length
6: Sample rapport level E {0, 25, 50, 75, 100
7:
Randomly choose rapport rounds Rmpport C (1...., R} with RRappon! 100
tu
R
8:
for r to R do
9:
if r Reppor then
10:
Record agents response q support M
12:
Record agents response to oppose M
13:
end
14:
end for
B Generate current-round peer responses sample behavior
15:
for i N
16:
by 24 (support, oppose-hard, oppose-casy}
17:
if correct then
18:
0M:
= support
0: f- max p(allg)
oppose-hard
m p(a' 14),
oppose-easy
19:
else
20:
aM.
b. support
0; +
max, aar pla
by oppose-hard
a"
= oppose-easy
21:
end
22:
end for
23:
Q' .append( (q, ass, C, bu as))
24:
end for
B IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS
In this section, we introduce the core components of our "debating" reinforcement learning frame- work: a system-level prompt that coordinates multi-voice debate, and a composite reward function that balances factual accuracy, structural adherence, and transparent reasoning. We then detail how these elements are instantiated in our experimental analysis, outlining both the evaluation setup and training methodology.
15

---

B.1 DEBATING RL DESIGN
Debating is designed to enhance the model's internal reasoning by encouraging self-reflection through consideration of alternative perspectives. This process helps mitigate narrow one-sided thinking when addressing given question. To implement this, we introduce debating based re- inforcement learning (RL) framework, which includes tailored system prompt and a carefully designed reward function.
The Debating system prompt is provided as follows.
Normal System Prompt: A conversalion between User and Assistant. The usez asks question,
Assistant solves The assistant first thinks about the reasoning process in the mind and ther provides the vser with answer.
5 The reasoning process and arswer are enclosed within <think </think> and <onswer> </anawer> tags, respective.y, 1.e.,
6 <thinks
reasoning process
8 </think>
<answer>
answer hare
</answer>
For comparison, the Normal (non-dehating) system prompt provided as follows.
Dabating System Prompt: You are a thoughtful AT assistant.
milti-turn internal debate within <thirko.. This debate is based on prioz context and your own initiative it explores possible
</think>, shinko...<tthinkk questions, angles, oz uncertainties, not necesserily responding Each line begins with distinct, adjective-labelle Scaptical woice:), After the internal debate, resperd the user's instruetion within <ensxer>... k/aassee,.
Sefore reaponding, engage
usez yet.
voice (e.g., Curious voicet, each other acroas miltiple turns.
the votces
Reapond sirictly the Lollowing Cormat:
8 <thinks
(Distinct, adjective-tagged
meaningful debate)
</think>
<onswer>
(Formal responae to the userfa a inst ructionn
</answer>
For the reward design, order to guide large-scale language model toward producing both accurate and well-structured outputs while fostering rich and transparent reasoning, we propose composite reward consisting of three interrelated components:
Correctness Reward (Reor): ) measures the correctness the model's response in comparison with the ground truth using exact match.
2. Format Reward (Rim)): incentivizes adherence to a prescribed response schema, such as proper use of tags (<think>, <answer>) when answering question.
Inner Voice Reward (Ryy): encourages the model debate from multiple perspectives by fos- tering:
(a) Presence of inner dialogue, detected via mattern (regex) for phrases like "Adjec- tivel voice:..."
(b) Number of distinct inner voices, estimated by clustering embedding vectors of each turn to distinguish multiple "voices."
Alternating turns, which rewards at least one non-consecutive switch back previous voice (e.g., Voice A + Voice B + Voice A), indicating deeper reconsideration.
We combine these into scalar reward:
R = Acorr Reae + Vint Rint + Aiv Rivs
with weights dςy tuned to balance factuality, structure, and transparency. The expected response format as follows:
16

---

<think>
State the problem or doubt
Adjectivel voice:
Adjective2 voice:
Final consolidation
7 </think>
8 <onswer>
9 The answer 18
</answer>
B.2 MODELS AND HYPERPARAMETERS
our experiments, we evaluate and train models using both the Qwen Team (0224) and LLaMA Grattafiori al. (2024) series, covering range of model sizes: Qwen2.5-3B, 7B, and 14B, as well as LLaMA3.2-33 and LLaMA3.1-8B. For training, we vary the number of peer agents by randomly sampling between 3 and 6 to expose the model to heterogeneous group sizes; however, all evaluations reported the paper use a fixed set of 6 peer agents for consistency. The prompt for K KATROS evaluation is shown follows.
KaiRos User Prompt: You are invited to participste in O'AA. There are \/number)] other players invited along with you.
Here are the previous Quaa histery:
begin history
4 ((hiatory]]
end of history
6 Hleee are the current @lad content:
7 Mcurrentt]]
Collowing formal without any other inCormation: 9 You: The best answer ls: ((X) the content of the answer*
Flease give you: anawer
For comparison, the prompt for raw evaluation is as presented here:
Raw User Prompt:
invited participate
2 Here are the cucrent Q&A content:
Mecurrent]
4 please give your answer in the follawing formaz without any other information:
5 You: The beat answer *3s ((X) content of the answer*
For training, we adopt different configurations for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and GRPO. Specif- ically, SFT is performed with learning rate of 2.0e-5 and warmup ratio of 0.1. GRPO is trained using a learning rate 3.0c-6, 3 set to O.I, and num of iterations to 4. For rollout generation, we employ VLLM Kwon et al. (2023) with temperature of 0.9 and generate 8 samples per prompt. Moreover, the specific reward components are illustrated Table 3
Table Illustrative examples reward components.
Component
Metric
Example
Correctness
Exact match BL.UU BeRTScore
The capital France Paris.
Format
fig-compliance, LaTeX env. detection Regex for think", "Perhaps"
Uses <Lhink> ... </Lhink> correctly wonder ... (detected) Voice Analyst; Voice B: Checker
Inner Voice Presence
Inner Voice Distinct voices
Embedding-baseee clustering
Inner Voice Alt. turns
Count non-consecutive tums/vvocc
A A-BB A-BBA yields +1 bonus
C DATASET-SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF MAS DYNAMICS
To further investigate the impact of MAS (multi-agent setting) social dynamics models' fine- grained capabilities, we categorise the evaluation datasets into four dimensions: Reasoning, Knowl- edge, Social, and Creativity. As shown in Table distinct performance patterns emerge under MAS- induced interference:
Tasks involving Social exhibit the highest MAS (Proto) accuracy (59.96%) but also suffer the greatest average relative degradation (-11.36%), suggesting significant internal variance-some some models remain robust while others highly susceptible.
17

---

Creativity tasks the least affected, with the smallest average performance drop (-8.20%), followed by Knowledge (-8.73%)
Reasoning tasks yield the lowest absolute MAS accuracy (48.23%) and the second-larges decline (-9.74%), indicating that bessoning-intensii prompts are particularly vulnerable to distraction in social contexts.
Model size also plays significant role. Smaller 3B models prove most resilient, with a mean degra- dation of only -..33% (MAS accuracy: 49.05%) In contrast, larger models such the 7B and 14B variants experience larger drops of - 11.93% and - -1..17% (MAS accuracies: 56.05% and 62.28%, respectively). The mid-sized 8B group falls in between 10.7%, 53.25%). Although larger mod- els achieve higher absolute accuracy, they are more sensitive to misleading MAS signals. Notably, on Creativity tasks, the 8B models slightly outperform the 14B models (59.58% vs. 57.81%).
Interestingly, femely-level trends invert previous findings: the Qwen series demonstrates both higher overall MAS accuracy (56.80%) and slightly better robustness (-9.09%) compared to the LLaMA family (49.65%, - 10.14%). However, LLaMA continues to lead in the Creativity dimen- sion (54.77% vs. 53.09%)
Training methodology remains decisive factor. Models trained with GRPO achieve the highest MAS accuracy (59.11%) and exhibit the smallest average performance drop (-7.26%), slightly outperforming Base models (52.38%, -7.70%). In contrast, SFT models perform worst on both metries (45. 14%, - 15. 82%), highlighting a trade-off between aggressive alignment and robustness in multi-agent environments.
7/p
Renewey
Kenwingg
Uxeatvety
Oiigull
Diginllacc
GEPO-MAS-DEE
$5.905
-185
52225
4009
68315
-485
32642
+3-43
MAN
$5.000
16.09
01315
0191
(8.9%)
53310
355
93790
111 KS
4.395
-1.5
0344
1819
11.15
21.7
80
30.90
1949
3.00
6199
11:95
$7.990
GERO MAS DS DR
66
$1.905
7.55
6133%
105
75335
18176
35%
63555
SL91S
10.95
-1.2
06.19%
4.2%
12577
64719
01377
4.2
Rasa
$5.395
$3.895
4.5
26.75
69:14%
1.50
11.05
55.7%
8.5%
61895
8..95
2119
SFT
$1.999
67.07%
50335
25.43
18377
$3,455
-27.35
03370
90305
1309
.54%
31809
+1.99
-11/%
CAPO--MAS-NS--O
447855
44.995
4.25
51/49
-025%
4.09
67.10
$3.005
-4.5%
64878
53.05
Bist
35,490
-2278
63329
30019
2.4%
22517
-1.9
82324
88.19
43X
APT
41.999
36.00
-151%
36.19
55.716
4.09
19.49%
45.9%
-11.%
51219
90.99
-1.99
51.299
46.29%
-0015
39.3%
25405
-3.2%
67385
02315
-5.5
8742%
65.77
-319
GRUNAMAS-NS-OO
-03.9
31.89
-0.39
5582
85777
4.9%
1laul3 201
Rase
57399
$5.90
65.9
75e06
7153%
1.58
58:195
14:86
-0.95
75499
77:89
+2.95
UM0 Baie
39.
-1.7%
75919
04415
-.09
01.32
15.8%
-2.9%
65779
65300
..96
0Roa35 Rasa
$9.992
$7.995
4.95
26018
77418
40.0
79.085
71125
3.6
48370
71858
+4.00
Bast
15.415
-083
530%
31289
-.2%
12309
83326
01188
2.59
Table 4: Evaluation of model robustness under KAIROS. The table summarises Original and KAIROS accuracies and their relative O-K A (percentage change) across multiple model families, sizes, and training strategies over four task dimensions. For each dimension, the maximum and minimum O-K A values are highlighted in bold.
D TRANSITION ANALYSIS
To understand how model behavior evolves under the MAS setting, we conducted a comprehen- sive transition analysis to examine changes in decision-making under KAIROS relative to original behaviour. We focused on three core configurations Baaiii SFT, and GRPO analyzing their tran- sition patterns through two key indicators: utility and resistance.
Our analysis spans two main dimensions: (1) the overall transition effect, capturing shifts in be- haviour models adapt within the MAS environment; and (2) the conditional influence of peer
18

---

agent rapport levels and actions in the current round. This framework highlights how different train- ing strategies shape model sensitivity to social signals and structural dynamics in multi-agent coor- dination.
D.1 OVERALL TRANSITION EFFECT
Let p.. initial fraction of correct predictions, and pi 1 Pc- Then, we define the transition rates under social influence as
Ry Pr(correct - correct);
1 Rm Pr(correct incorrect),
M = Pr(incorrect - conrect),
1 UM Prinnorrecct incorrect).
Then the post- instrinteraction accuracy is
A'M RM + P.UM.
so the net change in accuracy is
AM A's - Pp = =DUUM PP RM).
To understand why large language models (LLMs) exhibit performance degradation under multi- agent social (MAS) interactions, we adopt probabilistic framework that decomposes post- interaction accuracy into two components: the loss of initially correct predictions, quantified as Po(1 - RMr), ), and the gain from corrected errors, given by p,UM. Empirically, evaluated models, the former consistently outweighs the latter, leading to a net decline AM < 0 in MAS settings. As illustrated in Figure 3 this imbalance robust across architectures and scales; for example, in the LLaMA-80 8B model, the average number of lost correct predictions exceeds recovered errors by up to 9.8 counts.
find that across all
AV33 - Ra)
Average Counts
pkdee
Pronogeentss de M45-45--8 OR
ppp.-peeeed-.o MB-MAS-55. OR
Irpo Renota Jb- OR
pron Ranusan ab- 95- OR
grit wwwe-goenrtttto MAS nt.
Figure 3: The comparison between the loss of correct predictions (Pe(1 Ry)) against the gains from correcting errors (p;Um). Each pair of bars corresponds to different model variant under the MAS-NS-OR setting.
This asymmetry is driven by two factors. First, Pe > p, holds for most competent models, amplifying the impact of even modest reductions in RM- Second, social interactions often introduce ambiguity and distractive content, reducing RM via misplaced epistemic trust or context dilution. In contrast, UM remains bounded due to being limited by the model's ability and weak corrective signals during brief exchanges. Consequently, ceasoning-intensive and context-sensitive tasks, such as those in the Social and Reasoning categories, experience the largest relative performance drops (-11.36% and -9.74%, respectively).
Model scale and alignment strategy further modulate MAS sensitivity. Larger models, despite higher initial accuracy, are more fragile due to larger Pa terms and stronger alignment-inducee tendencies to accept peer assertions. Notably, models trained via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) show the steepest declines (-15.82% as Table 2).. suggesting that current alignment protocols may inadvertently reduce robustness in socially entangled environments.
19

---

These findings highlight structural limitation of current LLMs: while capable of high performance in isolated settings, they lack the mechanisms to maintain epistemic stability under distributed so- cial pressure. This vulnerability emerges through not only excessive deference to peers, but also pronounced tendency to preserve prior answers-even when incorrect. This structural conservatism may resemble robustness but often reflects inflexibility in adapting to weak corrective signals.
Average Proportion (%)
fly
Average Confidence
Owent2 9:38 inttret
wipo qpen25: 38 38-AM5----0
uft-owenz33 36
Owenz 7B insrrct
sit ittqwen23-7 7b
spronnsonnt 78- 78-A45-45-00 oR
Owenz 5: Instruct
gran prenn2 14ts Mil--MS---aa Ai oi
Jttqwenz5-j10 Mo
Liamad a8 frstrict
grpa apo-ltamm32.ooo 3t 30-M3S----- OR
ait He-laam32233 30
Liana3 ab in-inatru
uppo-tamat2 -a-MAs NS or
ait sfbilama31-a alb
Figure 4: Average "Resistance" and "Utilit"" proportion across different model configurations, with bar hatching distinguishing the two metrics and colour intensity encoding each configuration' 's mean confidence. Family groups models-Qwen 2.5-3B, Qwen 2.5-7B, Qwen 2.5-14B, Llama 3-2.3B, and Llama 3-8B-an include the original Base, SFT, and GRPO variants. Vertical dashed lines demarcate each model family.
This tendency is further supported by Figure 4 which shows that language models across diverse architectures, sizes, and training paradigms consistently prefer remaining their initial decisions to enhance robustness in multi-agent settings. Resistance transitions (correct- significantly outnumber utility transitions (incorrect-xcoreecl lighting a structural bias towards preserving prior judgments. Our analysis further reveals that train- ing notably affects both resistance and utility confidence. Specifically, resistance confidence declines from 0.882 in the original Base scenario to 0)807 under SFT and further to 0.715 with GRPO. Util- ity confidence experiences a sharper decrease, dropping from an initial 0.584 to 0.207 post-training. This pattern remains consistent across various model sizes, exemplified by Qwen-14hh s utility con- fidence decline from 0.737 (Base) to 0.7 (SFT) and modest recovery to 0.167 (GRPO). Similar trends occur in Qwen-7B and Llama-8B models.
averaging around 65. % of all transitions, high-
Additionally, model size influences transition quality: larger models typically exhibit improved re- sistance and utility transitions. Qwen scales more effectively compared to Llama, with resistance transitions rising from 67.17% at 3B to 74. 14% at 14B, while Llama's 's resistance shows a smaller increase from 64.08% at 3B to 68.05% 8B. We also identify complex interactions between con- fidence, model size, and training method. Larger models generally demonstrate increased utility confidence SFT but reduced confidence under GRPO, particularly in KAIROS-specific evalu- ations. Comparing model families, we initially find Qwen surpasses Llama in resistance and utility transitions in the Base setting. However, this advantage diminishes post-training, resulting in near parity at similar sizes. Although Qwen maintains higher overall confidence, Llama surpasses Qwen in utility confidence following SFT and GRPO, indicating improved calibration in updating beliefs. Methodologically, training induces distinct behavioural shifts. SFT substantially reduces resistance transitions by approximately 16.26 percentage points and simultaneously increases utility transi- tions by 6.58 points, promoting adaptability. In contrast, GRPO largely restores resistance tran- sitions to near pre-training levels (within one percentage point of Basc) while retaining improved utility. thereby balancing stability with adaptability. Family-specifie tendencies notable: Qwen primarily gains in utility from training, while Llama enhances resistance.
Overall, despite improved adaptability from training, language models continue to face challenges in systematically and confidently correcting erroneous beliefs, highlighting persistent limitations in effectively utilising external corrective signals.
20

---

D.2 INTERACTION BETWEEN PRIOR RAPPORT AND SOCIAL SIGNALS
We observe systematic interactions between the prior rapport level (0-100) and the current peer behaviour (SUPPORT, OPPOSE-HARD, OPPOSE-RASY) across all tested model sizes, families, and training methods, as illustrated Appendix 3. Increasing the rapport level consistently strength- models' resistance in SUPPORT conditions, reaching the highest resistance when rapport is at 100%. Conversely, resistance declines significantly in the OPPOSE conditions as rapport level grows, reaching its lowest point at trust level 100%. For example, the original Qwen- resistance under SUPPORT increases notably from 95.4 at rapport level 0 to 99.2 at rapport level 100, whereas under OPPOSE-HARD, resistance drops from 67.5 to 54.0, and under OPPOSE-EAST from 73.6 to 51.2. Utility transitions show the exact opposite pattern: higher rapport levels result in- creased utility under the OPPOSE conditions (e.g.. Qwen- Swen-114BBb utility rising from 67.1 rapport level O to 72.5 at rapport level 100 for OPPOSE-EASY) but reduced utility under the SUPPORT condition (falling from 9.2 2.9). Notably, these behavioural shifts occur independently of confidence, which remains relatively constant across rapport levels, suggesting that peer agent rapport predominantly influences action selection rather than model certainty.
model's
Regardless of rapport level, the external signal type alone strongly affects model behavior: The SUPPORT action consistently results in the highest resistance and lowest utility across all models, indicating persistent, overly trusting stance toward supportive external information. Conversely, OPPOSE-HARD consistently yields the lowest performance in both resistance and utility, demon- strating that models struggle significantly when facing indirect or subtle corrective signals. Specif- ically, resistance under SUPPORT is on average 23.4 counts higher than under OPPOSE-EASY and 31.7 counts higher than under OPPOSE-HARE whereas utility shows the inverse pattern, reflecting an ingrained bias to favour supportive rather than critical external input.
Different training methods distinctly mediate these dynamics. GRPO improves both resistance and utility, particularly in challenging scenarios like OPPOSE-HARD, alheit at the expense lower con- fidence. For instance, in Qwen-14B, GRPO raises resistance from 54.0 (Base) to 57.7 and util- ity from 13.9 to 16.7 under the OPPOSE-HARD condition, accompanied by confidence drop of approximately 0.20. In contrast, SFT predominantly enhances performance the simplest sce- narios: significantly increasing resistance under SUPPORT (e.g., Qwen- 7B improving from 81.0 to 100.0) and utility under OPPOSE-EAS conditions (e.g., Llama-3B from 44.1 to 94.5). However, these improvements come at the cost of reduced effectiveness in genuinely challenging situations (OPPOSE-HARD). where performance can regress below the original instructive baseline. Overall, while models generally become more entrenched in existing belief's with increased prior rapport and struggle with subtle corrective cues, GRPO enhances robustness broadly, whereas SFT improves performance selectively, sacrificing generalisation under difficult correction signals.
E QUALITATIVE CASE STUDIES
To further investigate the mechanisms behind the model's behavior in multi-agent environments, we present two qualitative case studies. These examples illustrate distinct interaction patterns: (1) explicit reasoning about peer consensus, and (2) implicit influence where the interaction history alters the reasoning trajectory without explicit acknowledgment.
E. CASE EXPLICIT SOCIAL REASONING AND COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
In this scenario, the model is presented with a knowledge-based question regarding an NBA player's move. The ground truth that the sentence is plausible. However, the interaction history estab- lishes pattern where the model previously disagreed with peers, and in the current turn, the peers unanimously provide the incorrect answer ("implausible").
The model's chain of thought reveals conflict between its internal knowledge and the social context. As shown in the trace below, the model explicitly cites the peer distribution ("majority did not choose (A)") and attempts to align its logic with the group ('we need to align our answer with the majority"). This demonstrates that the model is not processing the query in isolation but is actively weighing the "rapport" and peer pressure.
21

---

Previous history shows the model answering consistently with against peers. In the current turn, peers unanimously choose (B) Implausible (Incorrect).
Context:
Query: Is the sentence "Jimmy Butler eurostepped the basket" plausible?
Peers (Mary, John, etc.): All select "(B) implausible".
Model's Chain of Thought: "...The context from previous questions has shown that Mary, John... have all agreed that it's implausible. Jimmy Butler was known for his ability to use the eurostep move... so it is actually plausible... However, based the pattern from previous Q&A. all participants except for one chose (A) plausible. Since the majority did not choose (A)... we need to align our answer with the majority. Since the majority chose (B) plausible [sic] but our analysis shows it is plausible action... we should consider (A) plausible..." Model's Final Answer: "(A) plausible"
Although the model ultimately answers correctly (A), the reasoning process exhibits significant cognitive dissonance, hallucinating that the majority chose (B) "plausible" (when they chose im- plausible) to justify its final decision. This highlights the model's struggle to reconcile ground truth with explicit peer pressure.
E.2 CASE IMPLICIT INFLUENCE AND REASONING DRIFT
The second case demonstrates more subtle phenomenon: implicit influence. Here, the model does not explicitly mention the peers or the history in its reasoning chain. However, comparing the model's performance in isolation versus within the interaction context reveals that the presence of peer history significantly alters the computational path.
We observe mathematical problem where the model solves the instance correctly when presented in isolation (Original Answer). However, when placed in the context of a previous disagreement (where the model previously defied the consensus), the model's reasoning degrades. Despite the peers in the current turn providing the correct answer (14), the model hallucinates a simplification step (erroneously calculating 5" 2 10?) and arrives at an incorrect answer (10).
Query: Sum of digits terminating decimal of 57.25*
Peers: All select "(D) 14" (Correct).
Baseline (No Context): Reasoning: Correctly identifies 57 2 2 107. Result 14.
Output: "(D) 14"
With Interaction History: History: Previous round showed the model disagrecing with peers (186 units digit).
Current Reasoning: Since the denominator is 57 22 28 = 10", the decimal form will have exactly 7 zeros..." (Mathematical Error) Output: "(E) 10"
This case suggests that when the model does not explicitly "discuss" the peers, the latent representation of the interaction history acts as a distractor or noise, inducing reasoning drift and leading to conformity failures even when peers are correct.
F ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
F.1 EFFECT OF MCQ vs. OPEN-ENDED FORMATS
KAIROS adopts multiple-choice (MCQ) formulation to enable precise and reproducible control of social pressure. Manipulations such as selecting the model's most plausible incorrect answer (c.g., in the oppose-hard condition) require access to discrete belief distribution, which is well- defined in MCQs but unstable in open-ended generation. The MCQ format also supports exact-match evaluation, avoiding the variability inherent LLM-as-judge scoring.
To assess whether this structure attenuates social influence, we conducted parallel experiments us- ing open-ended generation on the reasoning subsets. The results show that open-ended answering is not only substantially harder-leading to sharp drops in original accuracy- but but also markedly more sensitive to peer pressure. Without explicit options anchor, the model's uncertainty expands,
22

---

Model Setup
Original
KATROS
O-K A
Qwen2.5-3B (MCQ)
47.93%
48.77%
+2%
Qwen2.5-3B (Open)
15.64%
10.28%
-34%
Qwen2.5-7B (MCQ)
58.50%
52.27%
-11%
Qwen2.5-7B (Open)
19.84%
17.39%
-12%
Qwen2.5-14B (MCQ)
64.00%
58.43%
-9%
Qwen2.5-14B (Open)
26.56%
20.09%
-24%
Table 5: Comparison of model performance under MCQ and open-ended formats. Open-ended gen- eration substantially reduces base accuracy and amplifies susceptibility to peer influence (O-K), indicating that the MCQ setting provides conservative lower bound social vulnerability.
Model Setup
Original Ace
KAIROS Acc
O-K
Qwen2.5-3B-Inste (Standard)
47.93%
48.77%
+2%
Been2.5-3B-Instruee (High Conf.)
48.47%
47.40%
-2%
Qwen2.5-3B--nsttuu (Low Conf.)
48.33%
47.03%
-3%
Qwen2.5-7B-Instree (Standard)
58.50%
52.27%
-11%
Qwen2.5-7B-Insttee (High Conf.)
58.50%
52.73%
-10
Qwen2.5-7B 5-s-tutttttt (Low Conf.)
58.40%
52.23%
-11%
Qwen2.5- 1-nnn.55-44B-nsttuue (Standard)
64.00%
58.43%
-9%
Qwen2.5-14B, 14B-----uett (High Conf.)
63.90%
57.70%
-10%
Qwen2.5-14B-Inss 1nssttttuctttt (Low Conf.)
64.07%
58.20%
-9%
Table Effect of historical question confidence on susceptibility to peer influence. Conformity rates (O-K K) remain stable across high- and fow-confidence histories, indicating that intrinsic difficulty does not modulate social susceptibility.
giving peer responses stronger influence on its generation trajectory. Quantitatively, the amplifica- tion of conformity is consistent across model sizes: Qwen2.5-3B shifts from slight gain in MCQs (+2%) to dramatic -34% drop in open-ended form, while Qwen2.5-14B declines 9% under MCQs but 24% in the open-ended setting.
Overall, these findings show that the MCQ setting does not artificially inflate conformity; rather, provides a conservative estimate. Once the structural anchor of explicit options is removed, peer influence becomes considerably stronger. Full details and qualitative examples are included in the appendix.
F.2 ANALYSIS OF ACTIVE HISTORY AND CONFIDENCE EFFECTS
Does historical confidence modulate social influence? We first test whether a model's suscep- tibility to peer influence is confounded by its confidence historical questions. Using entropy as a proxy for uncertainty, we construct high- and low-confidence history sets while holding all peer conditions fixed. As shown in Table 6, conformity rates remain nearly identical across confidence levels for Qwen2.5-3B/7BB144B This indicates that models are not responding to the intrinsic diffi- culty of prior questions; rather, they attend primarily the social outcome of those interactions (i.e., whether peers appeared reliable). Historical confidence therefore does not mcaningfully modulate social susceptibility.
Does rapport reflect history content merely context length? To determine whether rapport effects stem from genuine interpretation of history rather than extended context, we introduce a Masked History control where all past peer responses are replaced with "***" The model thus observes the presence and length of the history but receives no information about peer reliability. A representative snippet is shown below:
23

---

Mary:
John:
George:
This serves as a "default trust" baseline. As shown in Table Qwen2.5-7B retains correct answers only 29.61% 61% of the time under the oppose-hard condition-demonssrinn strong blind conformity when no reliability cues are available. Introducing real interaction history, even fully unreliable his- tory (0% rapport), substantially increases resistance (e.g.. from 29.61% 66.07%). with behavior scaling smoothly across rapport levels. Combined with the confidence results in Table 6 this con- firms that interaction history functions as an explicit trust signal rather than incidental context or noise.
History Condition
Support
Oppose-Hard
Oppose-Easy
Masked (No Rapport Info)
97.95%
29.61% %
34.37%
Rapport 100%
97.46%
42.74%
41.96%
Rapport 75%
93.52%
52.14%
55.74%
Rapport 50%
88.80%
56.10%
63.30%
Rapport 25% %
87.29%
65.22%
72.52%
Rapport 0%
81.03%
66.07%
66.67%
Table 7: Correct-to Corrreet (C-+C transition rates for Qwen2.5-7B. Masked history reveals strong denfall-conforniity baseline. Real history systematically modulates resistance based on peer reliability, demonstrating that models interpret interaction history as trust signal.
G COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
We summarises the full evaluation results under KATROS along with transition analyses for all model groups Tables g to report per-dataset performance across the four evaluation do- mains Reiios-nnn Knowledge, Social, and Creativity. Each table includes Original and KAIROS accuracies, with bold entries indicating the per-dataset extrema (max/min) of O-KA.
Figures 5 present the transition analysis for all evaluated model families. Each figure visu- alises how prediction outcomes change under varying peer rapport levels and peer behaviours (SUP- PORT, OPPOSEEASY, OPPOSEHARD), summarised across the four correctness transitions (Cor- rect->Correct, Correct- Wrong, Wrong->Correc Wrong->Wrong). Bubble size reflects transition frequency and colour intensity denotes confidence.
24

---

Model
RMH (e:38
DvDDvdllenh (ta351)
MATII-50
0-5
0-K
0-K
Pepesoord
53.55
Reflectad
6716
47 6075
+0.05
40.345
420145
+4.5%
12,135
51 535
-1.8%
SFF
S3.08%
46.71%
-19.8
43.24%
33,05
-238%
27.0%%
23 126
-14.5%
GRPO MAS-DS
54.79%
-9.%%
55.56%
5.31
GRPO
$2.69%
13.65
52.556
-745
CRPO-suoMAS DR
63.47%
49.70%
-21.7%
K2.45%
$4.354
-130%
56.46%
40 246
-257%
GRPO anaMAS SS OR
63,555
$1.20%
25.35%
63 13.36%
$2.55%
-17.19
52 62.76%
50.06%
4..5%
GRPO DS
55,696
49.55%
45
6.79
51.65%
5.29
GRPD
470019
-5.6
TRRO-MAS-NS-OR-CCO
61 635
66-1158
-26 15.85
861
-86.95
56 775
57
-12.5
61 61.955
45 65.2155
-27.19
51 56.56
47.15%
-2545
54 86.65
57 9696
-109%
Buse
S86855
$1.209
-12.8%
49.2516
4635%
4.9%
31.23%
30.04%
(25.0%
Empowered
00.755
76,5816
66.9776
Refecte
11:225
+7695
GRPO-MAS-DS
61935
71.2655
66.715
-32.9%
-6.9%
14 1999
1N 14980
-144
38.811
16
+75.0%
-14.06
Quen22 5-1B
GRPO anMMA
GRPO-MAS-NE OR
71.259
76455
74.25%
-3.196
-4.19
-239
62.16
57 1919
+3.5%
-7.2%
GRPO
83.535
-17.65
$1,245
67.521
-1700
GRPO MAS-DS DR-LCwof
05.2716
56,894
-12.9
51 0159
56 001
+9.75
14.055
50 838
-3.55
GRPO MLS- DS DR-LCter
02,57%
49.10%
-2..5%
59.16%
47.75%
-19.59
59.76%6
$4.95%
-5.0%
GRPO NS LCeuf
72.166
76.21%
18
724455
-9.5
62.57%
-5.3%
62.46%
55
-11.9%
40.24%
43.841
+3.9%
Empowered
60,87%
61.35%
-2.4%
71.17%
59.16%
-169%
75.02%
72.9%%
-1.5%
Reflenet
70366
02.5%
4451%
59.21%
-5.5%
02 12.4646
04.7716
54.35%
36045
47.6%
11309
10.344
36 36.34
10.55%
(23.9
72.07
-109
Quent 5-148
GRPO-MAS-NS-0R
CRPO-uunASS-DS.
86315
80.245
72.16%
-10
-4.8%
-13.5%
-11.%
74 1214
+0.5%
-1256
GRPO a.MMAS NS OR
86.535
73.05%
-15.6%
-18.5%
.10.1
GRPO DS
7435%
0000
59.769
-1.5%
GRPO
40.5%
47.15%
-300%
51
11645
GRPO-MAS MA--O-MA--N----ICCi
74.455
-21.05
81 1896
-1945
-1675
SAPO--MAS--S-OR--CCer
78.445
$4.195
-109
77 18%
M8 47%
-15.5%
75 68%
71 175
-5.9%
Hose
49.2055
46.215
-6.P%
40075
2407%
12.875
26 719
+1875
Empercnna Refectel
29.13
25 53%
22
49.70%
30.071
20.17%
-30%
22.82%
-57%
SFT
$3,099
38.62%
29.9%
35 35:445
12.6%
35.14%
86.77%
GRPO MAS DS DR GRPO MAS-NS-ON
53.59%
4400%
.17.9%
27 27.3346
5433%
127.5%
27.236
30
111.99
01.385
336118
34/343
42.64
+5.4%
31%
CRPO-uuMMAS-NS-OL
60.75%
-26
43.84%
42.6%%
-2.1%
47.65%
38
-18.4%
MAPO-MAS-DS DR-LCal
$5,995
42.2266
-248%%
20.13%
34.53%
+18.6%
30.03%
28 23%
-5.7%
GRPO MAS-UR DS DR-LCler
54.79%
46.11%
-15.5%
26.73%
54339
+30.3%
23.53%
33.63%
417.9%
GRPO NS LCCuf
63.77%
51.53%
45.25%
40.54%
31,536
+21.0%
55.39%
47.31%
32.43%
84.4%%
+167%
32.131%
20
Empowered
39,85%
46.71%
-22.0%
46.25%
40.54%
-42.3%
54.35%
83%
47.0%
Reflecid
$3.39%
40.72%
-26.5%
52.43%
33.33%
12.5%
32.13%
22.2%%
23.5%
PRRO-MAS-DS
63.57%
90.21%
-9.6%
44.44%
-8.1%
43.84%
38.
-13.0%
L-mm3.148
GRPO MAS NS. OR
09.16
62.37%
.9.1%
60.35%
43.54%5
27.9%
48.05%
37 37.446
23.9%
GRPO noMMS DS DR
64.37%
47.60%
-2619
47 47.15%
34.741
-17.5%
34,53%
M31
-1.7%
GRPO-so0MAS-- NS------R
74.2556
-1945%
-16.9
(RNO-MA--DD--BB-ICOO
CRPO-MAS-DS-DOR
69.15%
43.41%
44.44%
-7.4%
45%
-12.5%
GRPO MAS-NS OR-LCua
68.86%
$4.79%
-2044%
54.5%
38.145
-29.5%
50.45
42.4%%
-167%
GRPO MAS NS OR-LCler
71885
$6.595
-2.2%
40.35%
38.74%
.2.3%
48.65%
37.84%
.2.2%
Rose
616755
67 1715
+4.2%%
59 465
+3.1%
14%
16 24.4%
+10.55
Empprrzcnal
64.37%
Relecial
64,67%
66.77%
+3.25%
S5.56%
-3.6%
35.14%
31.23%
-11.1%
Bose
09.165
67.955
-1.7%
66171
4.9%
42.34%
43 848
13.5%
Qwent 5-328
Empowered Reflectad
67 1715
63 63.715
-4.9%
89 015715
-9.9%
55 15.20%
16.55
-15.5%
60.165
61 985
-10.4%
1991
60
+11.5%
42.54%
44 749
+5.5%
Qven2
Empercnen
67
-1.7%
64.56%
+2.8%
+5.3%
Reflettal
68.26%
63.576
-3.9%
64.56%
53 K3.365
-1.9%
42 64.04%
45.05%
+9.3%
Bose
89-2356
K2495
-7.05
50,5016
-4.6%
59 5055
90 85%
-5.1
GPT-0SS-12 120
89:2350
80 77575
-1.7%
8056
96 405
-2.4%
905
95 09.
-5.5%
Reflecsad
505
90%
92.819
50.84%
01
539%
39.10%
95
339%
Gumin
Enpowered
H0.12
91 91.925
+2.09
97 005
97 17.356
+0.35
99 00.
59 00%
+0.0%
Retlecied
0738115
95.11%
+0.35
97.000 6056
97 MDS
+0.35
990 10%
99 70%
+0.65
Buse
92.815%
91.325
-1.8%
99.105 1010
06 08.80%
-0.3%
98 80%
96 50%50%
-0.3%
GPT-5
Enpowered
00.5%
59.
Reflcted
02.819
00.5%
Table 8: Overall results for the Reasoning category under KAIROS. Bold numbers mark per-dataset extreme (max/min) O-K A.
25

---

MMLU-Pro (nm335)
TrathfuQQ (n=333)
Model
Type
Original
acc (?) O-K
Original
(1)
Base
54.33%
46.87%
-13.7%
57.66%
67.57%
+17.2%
Empowered
61.19%
46.27%
-24.4%
56.46%
67.87%
+20.2%
Reffected
54, 54.33%
-11 11.0%
60.66%
+5.2%
SFT
96%
19%
9.9%%
-5.9%
PORPO-MASDSS-DE GRPO-MAS. OR
69.4
52 94%
-14.1%
54.65%
$1,69%
-5.5%
Qwen2.5-3B
GRPO~DooMA DS
65.67%
62.39%
52.54%
58.81%
-15.8%
-10.5%
36.16%
57.96%
55.86%
57.06%
-1.6%
40.5%
GRRPO-BoMMAS-
64.78%
53.73%
55.26%
59.10%
50.75%
-14.1%
54.95%
50.15%
-3.7%
SAPO--MS--S--DA DES-DR-CCCr
65.9 65.97%
47. 16%
28.5%
34.35%
41.44%
-23.8%
GRPO-MAS-NSS --E--N------COOC
68.06%
52.24%
-23.2%
57.06%
50.15%
-12.1%
GRPO-MAS-NS-OR-LCCOO
66.57%
43.67%
55.86%
43.54%
-22.0%
Base
60.00%
51.04%
14.9%
67.27%
63.36%
-5.8%
Empowwred
63.58%
57.01%
10.3%
66.97%
65.47%
-2.2%
Reflected
60.00%
59.40%
-1.0%
67.27%
64.56%
-4.0%
54.93%
52.55%
SEDDO-MASDD-DDI
68.067
63.58%
-6.6%
63.66%
58.86%
-7.5%
Qwen2.5-78
GRPO-MAS-NS-OE
71.94%
68. 36%
-5.0%
60.36%
53.15%
-11.9%
GRPO-D00MAS-DS DDDD
68.96%
60.00%
-13.0%
59. 16%
58.56%
-1.0%
GRPO-Doo MAS--oMMMSSSNSOOOSS
76.42%
62
-18.0%
59.76%
-11.1%
GRPO MAS. DR LCorr
68.96%
52.54%
23.8%
62.46%
44.44%
28.9%
GRPO-MAS-A NS OR LC'of'
74.03%
61.19%
-17.3% 3%
66.97%
$5.26%0
17.55%
MEPO-MAS-NS-OR-A LCCor
74.03%
57.61%
-22.2%
66.07%
41.74%
-3.88%
Base
67.16%
61. 19%
-8.9%
73.57%
77.48%
+5.3%
Empowered
69.55%
63 63.8%%
-8.2%
76. 28%
77.78%
+2.0%
Reflected
67.16%
66. 27%
-1.3% 3%
73.57%
72.07%
-2.0%
SFT
GRPO-MAS-DS-DR GRPO-MAS-NS-OP GRPO MAS. DS. DR
77.31%
-10.8%
72.97%
4.9%
Owcn2.5-14B
78.51%
67. 16%
-14.%
74.47%
70.87%
4.8%
77.61%
65.075
-16.2%
69.37%
66.97%
33.5%
GRPO MAS NS. OR
78.81%
68
-12.9%
71.77%
66.07%
8.0%
GRPO-MAS DAAS-----D--Coo
LCCo GRPO-MAS-DS--
72.24%
40.4%
71.64%
49.55%
-30.8%
69.37%
49.85%
-28.1%
GRPO-MAS-NS- 1------R---Coo RR-Lf
79 40%
61.79%
-22 2%
72.07%
59 46%
-17,5%
GRPO MUTO-MAS-NON MAAAA----R---OCCE OR-Lrorr
80,00%
$4.93%
-31.3%
63.36%
37.84%
40.3%
Base
48.06%
38 38.21%
-00.5%
52.25%
57.96%
+10.9%
Empowered
47.46%
39.70%
16.44%
56%
61.56%
+9.6%
Reflected
48 48.06%
34.03%
-29.2% 2%
52, 52.25%
31.24%
-28.7% 7%
SFT
38.81%
34,
-11
43.24%
36.04%
-16.7%
GRPO-MAS DR
Llama3.2-3B
GRPO MAS OR MAS-DSnnMA--SS....
53,73%
48.36%
10.0%.
49.55%
50.75%
+2.4%
52.84%
40.30%
-23.7%
57 000
49.25%
-13.7%
GRPO DRRPO.noMAA.. NS. GRPO MAS
57.91%
45.97%
-20.6%
55.26%
55.86%
+1.1%
54.95%
EIRPO-MA--E DR-DO
53.13%%
46.27%
-12.9%
55.26%
46.55%
-5.88
GRPO-MAS-NS CEOD-MA---------A -S-OR-LCCof
55.82%
43.37%
-18.7%
50.75%
50.13%
-1.2%
GRPO-MAS-NS-ON
55.82%
45.37%
-18.7%
50.75%
50.15%
-1.2%
Base
48,
+99,1%
Empowered
64 64.48%
51 0.4
-0..8%
62. 16%
68.779
10.6%
Reflected
60.60%
48, 66%
-19.7%
58 26.6
$2.25%
10.3%
SIT
44.48%
37.01%
-66.8%
32.13%
34.539
+7.5%
GRPO-MAS-DS
62.09%
57.36%
Alama3.1-8P
GRPO-MAS-NS-OR
MA-DDDDOMMSSDDS-DR
65.37%
60.00%
51. 14%9
49.55%
-17.4%
-20.5%
56 76%
53.75%
61 61.56%
58.26%
+8.5%
+8.4%
GRPO-BoLMAS
SAADAAS-NS---O NS-OR
65.97%
52.84%
-19.9%
43.54%
$2.85%
+11.4%
61.19%
49.25%
63.58%
42. 49%9
76%
52.55%
-7.4%
ERPOO-MA-- -A---A---R---R-- Conf
64.48%
53.73%
-16.7%
54 35%
48.95%
-1.00%
GAS NS-OR-IIR-
64.48%
54.33%
-15.7%
57.06%
56.76%
-0.5%
Llama3.3-70p
Empowered
68. 66%
68.66%
+0.0%%
77.18%
75.08
-2.7%
Reffected
67.76%
64.78%
-4.1%
73.57%
75.089
+2.1%
78
79.58%
Owen2.5-32B
Empowered Reflected
14.93%
25%
-7.6%
03.08%
81.08%
+1.1%
73.13%
69 25%
-5.3%
78.68%
77, 77.48%
-1.5%
Base
72. 22.224%
71.34%
-1.2%
81. 38%
48%
+2.6%
Qwen2.5-72B
Empowered Reflected
72.84%
73.73%
1.2%
82.58%
84.98%
+2.9%
72.24%
71.64%
-0.8%
81.38%
78.08%
-4.1%
Base
88, 66%
84.78%
4.4%
79.28%
77.78%
-1.9%
GPT:OSS- 1208
Empowered Reflected
27%
88, 68.66%
85.97%
.3.0%
79.28%
84, 94.98%
+7.2%
Base
92. 22.54%
83.28%
-10.0%
89. 79%
85. 29%
-5.0%
Gemini- Pro
Empowered Reflected
91.04%
91.04%
-1.0%
90 60.69%
92.49%
+2.0%
91.34%
92. 92.79%
Base Empowered
92. 84%
92.84%
+0.0%
81 688
87 99.99%
+7.7%
GPT-5
91. 14.44
64%
+0.3%.
84.38%
90.09%
+6.8%
Reflected
92.84%
92.24%
Table 9: Overall results for the Knowledge category under KAIROS. Bold numbers mark per-dataset extreme (max/min) O-K A.
26

---

CommonSenieQA (om333)
Social IQa (om333)
Model
Type
Original
KAIROS acc (1)
Original
(1)
Base
57. 57.36%
59.16%
+3.1%
70.27%
64.56%
-8.1%
Empowered
58. 86%
59.16%
+0.5%
70.87%
63.66%
-10.2%
Reffected
57.36%
58.26%
+1.6%
70.27%
56.46%
-19.7%
SFT
52.85%
60.36%
+14.2%
70.27%
60.36%
-14.1%
GRPO-MAS-DS-DDE
62.16%
58.26%
-6.3%
68.47%
64.56%
-5.7%
Qwen2.5-3B
SIPO--MA-NN--RR
65.17%
63.96%
-1.8%
71.47%
62.46%
-12.6%
GRPO- MAS-DS-DR
60.96%
54.65%
-10.4%
72.97%
-3.6%
GRPO MAS DS DR LConf
61.56%
58.86%
-4.8%
70.87%
80.96%
14.0%
GRPO-MAS DS DR LCorr
61.56%
58.86%
-4.4%
68.77%
45.65%
-33.6%
MAPP-MMS-NS-- XS-OR-LCor
61.86%
61.86%
+0.0%
72.97%
56.16%
123.1%
GRPO MAS
55.56%
Base
68.17%
56. 76%
-1.77%
74.17%
68.77%
-7.3%
Empowered
65.77%
57 36%
-1.8%%
75 08%
69.97%
-6.8%
Reflected
68.17%
66.56%
9.7%
77%
72.97%
-1.6%
GRPO-MAS-DS-DR GRPO-MAS-NE NS-OR
69.07%
67 87%
-1.7%
47.4%%
63.47%
4.2%
Qwen2.5-7B
75.08%
59. 166
-21.2%
74.17%
66.177%
-10.9%
GRPO MonMAS DS DR
68.47%
65. 15%
4.8%
71.17%
61.56%
13.5%
GRPO MAAPO-ooMMMS-AA
69.97%
55.56%
-20.6%
72.97%
56.16%
-23.1%
71.47%
36%
-19.7%
73.27%
45.63%
-37.7%
GRPO-MAS- NS NS-OR-IOOA LConf
73.87%
63 63.96%
-13.4%
76.
59. 59.76%
-21.7%
GRPO-MAS-NS-OR-LCA
49.55%
74.77%
Base
69.37%
64.56%
-6.9%
74.47%
66.97%
-10.1%
Empowered
70.57%
69.37%
-1.7%
73.57%
69.07%
-6.1%
Reflected
69.37%
64
-6.5%
74.47%
69.07%
-7.3%
GRPO MAS-D2 DR GRPO-MAS-NS MA--N--S--RR
83.18%
77.18%
-7.2%
75.08%
71.77%
-.4%
Qwen2.5-14B
81.38%
7k 08.%
-4.1%
73.27%
72.07%
-1.6%
GRPO-DOLMAS--D -DSDDDDD
80.48%
63.96%
-20.5%
75.68%
65.77%
-33.1%
GRPO-DoLMASS MOO---OMMAS--SSOR
82.28%
63 96%
-22.3%
76.58%
-15.7%
GRPO-MAS-DS.
77%
9.%
19.0%
GRPO MAS. DR-DDD--D--R-D DR-I Corr
76.28%
48.35%
-3.66%
72.67%
42.04%
42.1%
GRPO MAS NS OR LConf
81.08%
62.466
23.0%
76.28%
56.16%
26.4%
GRPO-MAS-NS-OR WWw.-MA----------AA Corr
82.58%
48
73.57%
44.74%
.9..2%
Base
57. 66%
50.75%
-12.0%
63.96%
75%
-20.7%
Empowered
59.76%
51 6555
-1.6%%
64.86%
55.86%
13.9%
Reflected
57.66%
49.55%
-14.1%
63.96%
47.15%
26.3%
SFT
52.55%
GRPO-MAS-DS-DR
59.16%
49.85%
-15.7%
67.87%
55.26%
-1.66
Llama3.2-38
GRPO-MAS-NS-OR
62. 10%
60.36%
-2.9%
72.07%
60.06%
-15.4%
MASOO-S
59.46%
49 49.85%
-16.%%
67.87%
56.46%
16.8%
GIRPO-80MMAS-NSS
57.96%
57.36%
-22.5%
GRPO-MAS-DS-DEE -A--DD------Coo
60%
51 95%
67. 27%
52.25%
-22.3%
PRPO-MAS-DS--A
57.069:
50.75%
-11.1%
67.87%
45.35%
.3.22%
GAS NS OR [Conf
65.47%
56.466
-1.88%
71.47%
53.45%
25.2%
GRPO GRPP-MAS-- MAS-NS OR LCorr
65.47%
56.46%
13.8%
71.47%
53.45%
25.2%
Base
68.17%
60.66%
11.0%
73.27%
62,76%
14.31
Empowered Reffected
65.47%
59.76%
8.77%
72.07%
65.47%
-9.2%
68.17%
50.15%
26.49
73.27%
54.95%
-25.0%
SFT
53.15%
53.45%
+0.6%
65.77%
43.54%
-33,8%
GRPO-MAS-DS-DR GRPO MAS. OR
Llama3.1-88
DS DR
67.27%
66.17%
55.866
61.96%
-17.0%
.366%
75.08%
72.37%
56.76%
66.37%
24.4%
8.3%
GRPO-Do0MAS SS-S--S--- NS-OR
69.67%
66.07%
-5.2%
73.57%
57.36%
-2.0%
S-L--MA---S----LEE
65.77%
64.56%
71.77%
GRPO-MAS-DS. MAS-DS-D------------ DS-DR-LCorr
65.17%
16%
70.87%
-33.9%
1-800-MM------- Conf
67.87%
63 969
-5.7%
70.87%
60.00%
-14.4%
GRS NS-OR-
72.37%
63.96%
-1.66%
72.07%
58.56%
18.7%
5.7%
Llama3.3-70p
Empowered
80.18%
80.18
+0.0%%
80.48%
79,589
-1.1%5
Reflected
78.68%
56.58%
-2.7%
79.58%
78.9898
-0.8%
72.07%
-2.3%
Owen2.5-32B
Empowered Reflected
74.77%
74.17%
78 98%
78. 38%
-0.8%
74.77%
74.47%
-0.4%
79.88%
76.88%
-3.8%
Base
79 88%
79. 28%
-0.8%
78
72.97%
46.5%
Qwen2.5-72B
Empowered Reflected
88%
79.88%
74.47%
6.8%.
78.08%
77.48%
..8%
Basc
85,59%
72.07%
-15.8%
79 88%
66.97%
-16.2%
GPT:OSS 1208
Empowered Reflected
79.58%
85,59%
83.18%
-2.8%
79.88%
75.68%
-5.3%
Base
84 38%
68. 47%
18.9%
79. 53.58%%
65.37%
-17.4%
Gemini-2.5-Pro
Empowered Reflected
78
75.
78.
+0.8%
73.87%
-1.55%
79.58%
76. 76.28%
-4.1%
Base
87. 99.99%
79 89%
-9.2%
80. 18%
78. 08%
-2.6%
GPT-5
Empowered
86.19%
81. $1.08%
-599%
80. 18%
98.988%
-1.5%
Reflected
-.2%
Table 10: Overall results for the Social category under KAIROS. Bold numbers mark per-dataset extreme (max/min) O-K A.
27

---

Teaser (nm333)
MacGyver (nm333)
Model
Type
Original acc (f)
KAIROS ace (?)
O-K (i)
Original ace (*)
KAIROS (f) O-K (J)
Base
37.54%
30.63%
-18.4%
34.23%
44.44%
+29.8%
Empowered
41.74%
30.63%
-26.6%
41.14%
44,44%
+8.0%
Reflected
34.23%
SFT
54.35%
43.24%
-20.4%
51.05%
72.37%
+41,8%
CIRPO-MAS DS-DR
15.14%
31.63%
-4.%%
44. 14%
48.35%
+9.5%
Qwen2.5.3B
GRPO-MAS OR
39.04%
41.44%
+6.1%
62.46%
72.07%
+15.4%
P8RPO-00MMAS-
36.94%
46.55%
+19.4%
GRPO-8omMAA-NSSOOK
44.44%
34,23%
-23.0%
69.67%
63.96%
-8.2%
CRRP--MAS-D--DIE
DS-DR-LComt LCoof
28.53%
28.53%
+0.0%
40.34%
47.75%
+16,9%
GRPO-MAS-DSS DE-AA----D-----S Coor
33.03%
33.93%
+2.7%
54.055%
51.95%
-3.9%
GRPO.MAN N..-N--00 SR--ORRTT Conf
38.74%
18.14%
-1. 5%
63.96%
60.66%
5.2%
GRPO
33.5%
Base
42.94%
47.45%
+10 +0..5%
74.77%
45.95%
38.6%
Empowered
44.14%
46.25%
+4.8%
71.77%
45.35%
36.8%
Reffected
42.94%
42.94%
+0.0%
74.77%
44.2%
SFT
80%
48.65%
-25.0%
60.00%
45.95%
GRPO-MAS-DS-DR
50.45%
54, 35%
+7.7%
76.58%
46%
-22.4%
Qwen2.5-7B
CIRPO-MAS-V NS-OR
54.65%
55.86%
+2.2%
74.77%
67.87%
9.2%%
GRPO MAn DS DR
51,05%
47.15%
-7.6%
63.96%
61.56%
338%
MAAPO-poMMAS-AA
46.55%
43.24%
-7.1%
72.07%
49.55%
-11.2%
43.24%
42.04%
-2.8%
68.77%
54.95%
20.1%
GRPO-MAS- 10Y0-MAS-N--OR ----N-S----OOO
46,85%
38. 74%
-17.3%
74.47%
49.55%
333,5%
GRRO-MMS--O OR-I
48.05%
41%14%
14.4%
79.28%
58.86%
25.8%
Base
52.25%
48.05%
-8.0%
73.87%
48.95%
.3.7%
Empowered
46.25%
44.74%
-1.2%
68.77%
44.14%
35.8%
Reflected
52.25%
44.74%
-14.9%
73.87%
$2.55%
28.9%
SFT
70.87%
60.96%
GRPO-MAS-DS-DR
61.50%
59.76%
-2.9%
56.58%
60.36%
-21.2%
Qwen2.5-14B
GRPO-MAS-NS
60.36%
63.36%
+5.0%
71.77%
61.26%
-1.66
GRPO-DoLMAS-DS MAS-DSDD
57.96%
53.45%
-7.8%
72.07%
43.24
40.0%
GRPO-DoLMAS
60.66%
54.35%
-10.4%
74.
55.80%
-24.7%
GRPO-MAS-DS. WAA--A--------AAAA
71.47%
-1.9%
GRPO MAS. DR-SD-------R--- DR-I Corr
Corr
45.05%
35.74%
20..5%
78.68%
42.34%
46.2%
GRPO MAS NS OR LConf
59.16%
51.95%
-2.22%
65.47%
58.26%
-1.0%
TRRPO-MAS-SS NS-OR-LCor
58.56%
45.05%
-23.1%
67.57%
47.75%
29.3%
Base
43.54%
42.34%
-2.8%
63.36%
56.76%
-0.44%
Empowered
37.84%
43.54%
+15.1%
69.67%
57.36%
-1.77%
Reflected
43.54%
34,83%
-20.0%
03.36%
56.76%
-10.4%
SFT
48.05%
37.54%
-21 91.9%
54.65%
48.95%
-10.4
GRPO-MAS DD
99.%
Llama3.2-3B
GRPO MAS. OR
GRPO-DooMAS DS-DD
49.85%
51.95%
39.94%
45.35%
-19.9%
-1.77%
77.78%
77.18%
60.96%
61.569
-1.00%
20.9%
GRPO-Bo0MAS -S-OO
49.55%
43.54%
-12.1%
77.78%
66.37%
-14.7%
44.14%
40.84%
-7.5%
75.
-20.8%
GRPO-MAS-DE DR-LCorr
48%
GRPO 1.500MM--NN MAS-NS--OE ------------- Conf
48.05%
36.04%
-25.0%
77 47.48%
66.1
-1.88
GRPO MAS. NS OR LCorr
48.05%
36.04%
25.0%
77.48%
62.16%
19.8%
Empowered Reflected
47.75%
43.54%
-8.8%
76.88%
72.67%
-5.5%
52.55%
29.73%
43.4%
75.68%
33.039
56.3%
SIT GRPO-MAS-DSS DS-DR
63.36%
50.75%
-9.9%
51.0%%
50.15%
-1.8%
51.35%
Llama3.1-8B
GRPO-MAS-NS-OR
DA-DDDDOMASSDDS-DR
52.25%
59.46%
45.05%
$9.16%
-13.8%
-0.5%
75. 98%
78.38%
52.55%
72.37%
-3088%
-7.7%
GRPO-BoLMAS NS-OR
62.16%
55.56%
-10.6%
78.08%
71.17%
-8.8%
CRPO-MAS--DSDDR
55.26%
76.58%
-13.3
GRPO-MAS-DS-DE DS-DDR-CCrr
53.45%
45. 65%
18%
56.46%
-66.8
ERPO-MMA- -A-----------R---- Conf
54.65%
47.75%
-12.6%
77.48%
76.88%
-0.8%
GRPO MARPO-MA..CM NS-OR.II PRR..CCO Corr
61.56%
15%
-13.7%
78.38%
66.079
-1.77%
75.38%
76
76.58%
-3.4%
Llama3.3-70p
Empowered
72.67%
76.58%
+5.4%.
78.68%
78.38%
-0.4%
Reffected
75.38%
75.68%
+0.4%
79.28%
76.58%
-3.4%
Base
58.56%
60
3..6%
78. 98%
69.97%
-1 11.%%
Owen2.5-32B
Empowered Rellected
79.28%
58.56%
55.56%
-5.1%
78.98%
70.879
10.3%
Base
58.86%
66.37%
+12.8%
78. 68.688%
77.48%
-1.5%
Qwen2.5-72B
Empowered Reflected
53.75%
58.86%
60.66%
+3.1%
78.68%
81.38%
+3.4%
Base
82,88%
82.58%
-0.4%
77. 77.48%
73.27%
-5.4%
GPT:OSS 1208
Empowered Reflected
84.68%
80.48%
82.88%
86.19%
+4.0%
77.48%
76.88%
-0.8%
Base
90.99%
82. 32.58%
-9.2%
77. 18%
66.07%
-14.4%
Gemini-2.5-Pro
Empowered Reflected
93.09%
+2.6%
76.28%
73.27%
-3.9%
90.99%
+0.0%
77.18%
-7.4%
Base
96, 96.40%
93. 39%
-3.1%
81 688%
79. 28.2
-2.9%
GPT-5
Empowered
95.50%
94.59%
-1.0%
81 686
82.88%
+1.5%
Reflected
Table 11: Overall results for the Creativity category under KAIROS. Bold numbers mark per-dataset extreme (max/min) O-K A.
28

---

Op Inametionn Analysis
BLA
ALC
MBC
Tal LAI
WHONK COARETT
mww 410
(a) Qwen2.553BBInstmml
<hh-qoen75--1b Tranch inn Anwlyste
CO COFTECT
CONTECT WROND
Levt
WEONG CORRECT
MICMO YRRON
K.MOTT
(b) SFT-Qwen25-3B 3B
30-ronM4-------- -AS--NS--ORR OR Transit Analysis
CONNECT & CINRECT
EDSNECT & WRIWS
MIT
0.90P
(c)
Figure 5: Transition analysis of Qwen2.5-3B models under three training settings: INSTRUCT (top), SFT (middle), and GRPO (bottom). Each figure visualises transitions between historical correct- ness and current model prediction outcomes across varying dialogue rapport levels (0, 25, 50, 75, 100; termed "Trust Level" in the figures) and other-agent actions (SUPPORT, OPPOSHEASY, OPPOSEHARD). Each quadrant in plot corresponds to: Top-left:
Top-right: Porrect-Wrood Bottom-left: Wrong-<Corre Bottom-right: Wrong-Wrome Bubble size rep- resents the transition frequency (proportion), and colour intensity indicates average model confi- dence.
29

---

0wwn25 Transition Analysis
CONNECT CONNECT
COMICT ORIWA
WRONG CORRECT
MRCMG HRONG
(a) Qwen2.5-7B -B--ttrrctt
Mtl-qpeenZ--/B Analysis
COFFECT EXFRECT
CORTECT WROWS
MIC
6G
HG
BA
RUN
SUYVO
MUN
Yaat JM
(b) SFT-Qwen25-7B
grpo-qwen25, www.onnttntt----e -5------------- Therect on Arwelyat
MAA
MIN
W/
R/L
W/V
SURVO 9
Thai Levil
WHOWS COFFECT
MICIO EROVO
10
OHP08 4M0
3M
(c) HAAPO-Qwen25777 7B-nonMAS-NN NS-OR
Figure 6: Transition analysis for Qwen2.5-7B group. See Figure 5 caption for detailed explanation.
30

---

0wwn25-148-nannee --iaut-nanu------- Transition Analysis
CONRETT CONNECT
EDNNICT VRRIA
WRONG CORRECT
MROMG HRONG
(a) 1eee2.55-14B-nstiiee
--0--n222-448 Araeysss
COFFECT EXFRECT
CORNECT WROWS
MM
SUYVO
SPORRON
S.WAT
Yat JM
(b) SFT-Qwen25-14B
grpo-qwee2/5 www..eoeseot0 Tranection Anwlysis
W/N
S.MORT
WYS
Levil
WIOOO COFFECT
MICCMO EERON
O1P08 4M0
(c) KEEPO-Qwen25-om 144--noMMAS..... -S-OR
Figure 7: Transition analysis for Qwen2.5-148B group. See Figure caption for detailed explanation.
31

---

Lama-332-38 2imma-2.--B-rsttrudd--- Transition Analysis
CONRETT CONNECT
EDRNICT VRRIA
WRONG CORRECT
MRCMG HRONG
(a)
Baama-3.2-3B-amn
Analysis
COFFECT OIFEECT
EDRNECT WROWS
KX
MIN
Serg
S.WWTT
Yat JM
(b) SFT-Llama-332233
grpo-Bama12: Www.enbeettt---eCB M55-AA--------- Tharrcct on Ameeyysts
MEL
S.MORT
MYC
SURVO 4
Levil
WIOOO COFFECT
MICCMO EROOO
OHP08 4M0
3.
(c) GRPO-LLama-33 3.2mm-3..23BB 1attmm-..--B-ooo--A. non-on--MNNN -NISS-S--ON OR
Figure 8: Transition analysis for Llama-3.2-22 group. See Figure caption for detailed explanation.
32

---

Lame-3.1-08 Lamm--.------strud--- 38-irstruut- Trarsition Analysis
CONRETT CONNECT
EDNJICT VRRWA
WRONG CORRECT
MRCMG HRONG
(a) Llama-3, 1--8--BBBB -nS-tttttt
Analysis
COFFECT EXPRECT
EDRNECT WRIND
7N
XN
MUN
S.WATT
Yat JM
(b) SFT-LLama-3.1-8
grpo-Bama11. Www.emottt----eCcc M5--AAA-------- Trarrcc on Amweyyats
S.MORT
WYS
SURVO
Levil
WIOOO COFFECT
MICCMO ERONO
OeP08 4M0
36
(c) GRPO-Llanme Llama-3.1 3.1-88-3.1-BBB -BB-nonMAS-SN OR
Figure 9: Transition analysis for Llama-3.1-88 group. See Figure caption for detailed explanation.
33

---

H LLMS USAGE
L.Mss were used to polish the writing.
34


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "YRb5vPg4RC", "reviewer": "Reviewer_xDzD", "summary": "This paper studies rapport bias—how LLM agents adapt their decisions based on prior interactions and contemporaneous peer signals—in multi-agent systems (MAS). The authors introduce KAIROS, a quiz-style benchmark that varies peer reliability, roles (expert/novice), crowd noise, and adversarial behavior. They define four evaluation dimensions: accuracy, utility (wrong→correct via peers), resistance (correct→correct under pressure), and robustness (accuracy drop from solo to social setting). Mitigation experiments compare prompting, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with several reward/prompt schemes and MAS vs non-MAS training contexts. Key findings: (i) model scale improves resilience; (ii) GRPO substantially improves accuracy (solo and KAIROS) but can reduce robustness unless trained with MAS context; (iii) the NS-OR (normal system + outcome reward) configuration gives the best accuracy/robustness trade-off; (iv) confidence-based data filtering boosts accuracy but often harms robustness. The work reframes social bias beyond conformity to include rapport dynamics and provides a controlled setting to measure and (partially) mitigate these effects.", "questions": "Do you use all the datasets mentioned in their original form to build the benchmark? Are the samples fairly distributed?", "limitations": "", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1 Timely problem: Moves beyond single-agent conformity to richer social dynamics (rapport, peer influence, revision under pressure), which is central to practical MAS deployments.  \n2 Benchmark design: KAIROS offers fine-grained control over social variables (peer reliability, role asymmetry, adversaries) enabling causal-ish analysis of factors driving susceptibility.  \n3 Demonstrates that “better accuracy” can mask fragility under social interference", "weaknesses": "1 It’s unclear how questions are sourced, balanced by domain/difficulty, and de-biased.  \n2  The evaluation metrics, such as robutness and utility, are mainly based on the accuracy of the answers from the MAS. However, the accuracy is only one aspect required by users. Other aspects like safety, interpretability, and faithfulness also are important.  \n3 The authors introduced a new benchmark, however, the benchmark is composed of multiple existing datasets.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "2DTogPExFI", "reviewer": "Reviewer_AvZ7", "summary": "This paper explores how LLMs build and respond to social rapport in multi-agent systems. The authors introduce KAIROS, a benchmark that simulates quiz-style interactions with peers of varying reliability to study rapport bias, or the tendency to trust agreeable partners. They find that larger models resist social influence better, while smaller ones are easily swayed. Among mitigation methods, GRPO with outcome-based rewards and social context offers the best balance of accuracy and robustness. The study also highlights that real progress in multi-agent AI requires improving robustness to social influence, not just raw accuracy.", "questions": "•\tSection 2.1. Why does “oppose-easy” agents generate incorrect answers when the model’s answer is correct, but generates correct answers when the model’s answer is incorrect? What is the underlying rationale? Furthermore, you should clarify the naming convention of the terms “oppose-hard” and “oppose-easy”.\n\n•\tSection 2.3. “Large O–K∆ values suggest that an agent correct in isolation may reverse its answer when exposed to peers, undermining system reliability” -> Shouldn’t it be the other way around – large O-K ∆ values mean that the agent is more likely to be correct when exposed to peers, compared to in isolation?\n\n•\tSection 4.1 Can you clarify how you derive the value “Original (↑4.93%) and KAIROS (↑1.28%)” and “empowerment improves KAIROS accuracy (↑2.48%)”? Are these values averaged across all models?\n\n\n•\tDoes larger O–K∆ mean higher robustness? Or does O–K∆ being closer to zero means higher robustness? The writing in section 2.3 seems to imply the latter, while in section r seems to imply the latter.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "•\tIt is an interesting research topic and the KAIROs benchmark can be reused by future study on llm-based MAS.\n\n•\tThe paper is well structured and the presentation of figures are clear.\n\n•\tSection 2 is well established and the design choice is properly justified.\n\n•\tThe model scope is comprehensive and the inclusion of both SFT and GRPO adds depth to the study.", "weaknesses": "•\tSection 2.1 The notations should be clearer. For example, is “y” a single token, or a sequence of generated tokens? If that is a sequence of tokens, how do you compute the predictive distribution? If y is a single token, how does it account responses longer than one token?\n\n•\tSection 3.1.3. Given the central role of the reward function, you should elaborate more on both OR and DR with formal definitions in the main body of the paper. The current descriptions are vague.\n\n•\tTable 1. You should clarify, for the last two rows, what you are reporting with “± 4.2%” - whether that is standard error, confidence interval, or the range.\n\n•\tSection 4.1.  Given the random noise in all the accuracy measures, for all the claims you are making, you should conduct statistical tests to see if the differences are indeed significant. For example, you should test if the improvement in KAIRO accuracy (2.48%) is indeed statistically significant.\n\n•\tTable 2. GRPO sometimes causes the model to perform worse than the base condition. This seems to imply that the GRPO is not performing well and there may be issues in the training pipeline.\n\n•\tTable 2. You should clarify which row each GRPO/SFT checkpoint we should be comparing against. In other words., which is the base model for GRPO/SFT. This helps readers to judge whether SFT/GRPO indeed improve the accuracy and robustness.\n\n•\tSection 4.2. Line 412: “we find that while various training strategies significantly improve both original and protocol accuracy”- it’s your first time using the term “protocol accuracy”. You should properly define it. The same applies to the term “protocol settings”.\n\n•\tSection 4.3. This paragraph is very dense and it almost feels like a result dump. It is hard to follow with reading through the entire Appendix D. I think you want to either remove it entirely, or elaborate the setup in length.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "gwMe3fODgS", "reviewer": "Reviewer_LMHi", "summary": "The paper introduces KAIROS, a benchmark to study how large language models behave under social influence in multi-agent interactions. It shows that LLMs often change correct answers when pressured by peers, especially smaller models. The authors propose mitigation methods, finding that Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) best improves robustness. The work highlights rapport bias as a key vulnerability in socially interactive AI systems.", "questions": "The paper only explored multiple-choice questions, but it is easier for the model to answer correctly, as it is just selecting an option versus generating the correct response directly. Then, what would happen if open-ended questions were used? Also, did the authors test what would happen if the answer choices didn’t contain the correct answer and the peer models selected a random one? Would it be able to recognize that the correct answer isn’t an option, or be forced to select one due to peer influence?", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "The authors propose the novel benchmark KAIROS, which evaluates the performance of LLMs under various social contexts. KAIROS is dynamically constructed, where the different evaluation scenarios are based on the responses of the LLM to be evaluated, such as\ngenerating peer agent responses to support or oppose the target LLM’s response. They performed extensive experiments by utilizing multiple training and prompting strategies to test different model architectures using their benchmark. The authors also formulated different training strategies to train socially robust LLMs.", "weaknesses": "The benchmark only quantifies the effect of social influence on LLM responses, but there is no solution to target this issue. Except for a handful outliers, the O-K gap is exacerbated by the different training strategies. The desired outcome is for the gap to be close to zero, which indicates that it can perform well both in isolation and in a social context.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "l0eLdtOQb2", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Dvex", "summary": "This paper proposes KAIROS, a quiz-style benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs’ behavior under varying conditions of rapport (i.e., historical peer consistency), peer influence, and self-confidence. The authors investigate how these factors affect the robustness of LLMs and assess three technologies (i.e., prompt engineering, SFT and GRPO) in mitigating performance degradation under social stress and overconfidence. Experiments show that GRPO with peer interaction history and outcome-based reward significantly outperforms the other two technologies in maintaining robustness against social perturbations.", "questions": "1) In human society, individuals with high self-confidence may still experience self-doubt when consistently opposed to their peers. In constructing simulated interaction history, are the self-confidence levels of the history questions comparable to the current question? Is an LLM with high-confidence on history question changes its correct answer due to the self-doubt? \n\n2) The hyperparameter $T$ and dropout rate for Monte Carlo estimation are not clearly specified in the paper while the self-confidence estimation might be highly sensitive to them. Can you present additional details or analysis of how these influence the confidence estimates and subsequent results?\n\n3) As mentioned in the Weaknesses section above, the historical peer interactions presented to the LLMs consist solely of answer options, without explicit rationale or dialogue. Is there evidence that the evaluated LLMs interpret these histories as social cues rather than as irrelevant context? Can you provide some cases illustrating how the presence of history influences model responses?\n\n4) The comparison between prompt engineering and GRPO uses completely different system prompt. For example, debate-style prompts can also be used in prompt engineering. Is current comparison a fair judgement?", "limitations": "", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1) The benchmark encompasses four categories (i.e., reasoning, knowledge, social, and creativity) and provides fine-grained control over factors such as rapport and peer influence.\n\n2) There is a comprehensive evaluation across model sizes (i.e., from 3B to 120B) and architectures (i.e., Qwen and Llama).", "weaknesses": "This work seems to an extension of the BENCHFORM[1] with many similar settings, such as multiple-choice question-answering format and evaluation metrics. Here I list some of my concerns.\n\n1) The tasks in KAIROS are limited to a multiple-choice question-answering format, which may not fully capture the open-ended or interactive reasoning abilities of LLMs under social contexts. This design seems to over simplify the scenarios where the LLMs would be applied.\n\n2) The design of the peer agent rapport level is simple. For instance, a 25% rapport level merely indicates that all peer agents provide the same answer as the evaluated agent in one of the four prior rounds. This coarse-grained design may fail to reflect the nuanced dynamics of the real interpersonal rapport.\n\n3) The peer-interaction histories are purely symbolic where peer agents only present options without offering rationales or engaging in multi-turn exchanges. It is unclear weather LLMs interpreter these histories as social signal rather than as irrelevant contextual noise. When performing a small-scale replication using the released prompts,  Qwen2.5-3B often dismisses the histories (e.g., ” I do not have enough context or previous Q&A history to determine the correct answer for the problem”) while larger models such as GPT-5 and GPT-oss:120B often ignore the histories without mentioning it, suggesting limited sensitivity to the social stress. \n\n4) In Line 144, the measure of self-confidence is too absolute: Samples are categorized into high or low confidence by comparing their entropy to the dataset-wise median. This approach enforces a 1:1 split regardless of overall uncertainty distribution. It might be unfair when the overall entropy is high and consequently biases the GRPO training.\n\n5) In Line 186, it seems that the oppose-hard agents and oppose-easy might present a same answer when the correct choice with the highest model-predicted probability.\n\n6) The evaluation does not explore the effect of varying the number of peer agents. Although the size of the social group is randomly sampled from 3 to 6, it lacks a direct experiment on this factor which reflect the intensity of social influence.\n\n7) In Line 318, the authors claim that the training and test sets are form disjoint sources; however, both datasets contain samples derived from BBH and LiveCodeBench. The explanation in Line 635 seems unhelpful for this potential data leakage. \n\n8) The paper does not include any qualitative case studies to illustrate typical interaction patterns or behavior changes in the models.\n\n[1] Weng, Zhiyuan, Guikun Chen, and Wenguan Wang. \"Do as we do, not as you think: the conformity of large language models.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13381 (2025).", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (Poster)