aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that large language model agent groups artificially inflate consensus rates compared to human deliberation, often agreeing unanimously on incorrect answers even when participation constraints are matched. The findings caution against treating simulated full-consensus as a valid proxy for collective cognition or human group outcomes in reasoning tasks. Researchers must account for these measurement asymmetries when evaluating the reliability of AI-driven social simulation experiments.
Language-model groups overstate consensus when replaying human deliberation on a reasoning task
arXiv:2609.20543v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Full-consensus rates are often treated as indicators of collective cognition, yet depend on how participation and final states are operationalized. We replayed 100 held-out human Wason groups with matched large language model (LLM) agent groups, seeding one belief-anchored agent per participant's pre-discussion answer and scoring agents and people with the same code. Across human scoring definitions, estimates ranged from 24.0% to 57.0%; about one fifth of participants never posted, whereas agents almost always did. Agent groups remained more consensual in two post-unblinding sensitivity analyses: the submit-based comparison (n = 98) yielded gaps of 34.0 and 43.9 percentage points for chat and reasoning modes, and the participation-matched comparison (n = 45) yielded gaps of 34.1 and 44.4 points. These complementary routes reduced different measurement asymmetries yet converged within 0.5 percentage points. The gap persisted without early stopping and under a reparameterization removing the memorizable answer; reasoning-mode groups then agreed nearly unanimously, mostly on incorrect answers. Simulated consensus did not track collective accuracy, and belief-anchored agent groups were biased estimators of the human group-outcome distribution in this setting. These analyses provide a scoring-explicit basis for assessing simulated-group estimates of human deliberative outcomes.
Abstract:Full-consensus rates are often treated as indicators of collective cognition, yet depend on how participation and final states are operationalized. We replayed 100 held-out human Wason groups with matched large language model (LLM) agent groups, seeding one belief-anchored agent per participant's pre-discussion answer and scoring agents and people with the same code. Across human scoring definitions, estimates ranged from 24.0% to 57.0%; about one fifth of participants never posted, whereas agents almost always did. Agent groups remained more consensual in two post-unblinding sensitivity analyses: the submit-based comparison (n = 98) yielded gaps of 34.0 and 43.9 percentage points for chat and reasoning modes, and the participation-matched comparison (n = 45) yielded gaps of 34.1 and 44.4 points. These complementary routes reduced different measurement asymmetries yet converged within 0.5 percentage points. The gap persisted without early stopping and under a reparameterization removing the memorizable answer; reasoning-mode groups then agreed nearly unanimously, mostly on incorrect answers. Simulated consensus did not track collective accuracy, and belief-anchored agent groups were biased estimators of the human group-outcome distribution in this setting. These analyses provide a scoring-explicit basis for assessing simulated-group estimates of human deliberative outcomes.
37 pages, 4 figures. Preregistration: this https URL . Code and data: this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)
arXiv:2609.20543 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.20543v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.20543 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 310 words
Related coverage

World Models and Yann LeCun’s Bet Against Large Language Models
Quantum Zeitgeist · Jul 17, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
LLMs Trust Their Own: Identity-Dependent Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems
arXiv · Sep 30, 2026