Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.31325

Consistent but Biased: Chair Personas Trade Noise for Bias in Multi-Agent Clinical Decisions

Yitong Bai·Chengyi Zhang·Ziyang Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In clinical systems built from several large language model (LLM) agents, one agent often chairs the discussion and makes the final decision. Whether the chair's persona prompt changes that decision, or the agreement between repeated runs that some systems treat as reliability, has not been tested with the case held constant. We ask whether the persona changes the decision or only its timing, how it affects agreement between runs, and which behaviors appear when the prompt describes only personality traits. A simulated department of seven agents discussed 20 published cases of degenerative cervical myelopathy, with the case reports replayed unchanged in every run. Only the prompts of the chair and its deputy changed (no persona, or a consultative, autocratic or avoidant one), written either as rules of conduct or as personality traits. With personas written as rules, the chair chose to operate now in 93% of runs when autocratic and in 2% when avoidant, against 57% without a persona. Surgery was still planned in nearly all decisions, so the personas mainly changed whether to operate now or after more tests. These effects held with a second model and reworded prompts. The autocratic and avoidant personas made the three runs of a case agree more often, but only about as often as chance predicts, and Fleiss $κ$ did not rise. Prompts that described only personality traits kept more than half of the autocratic and avoidant effects on operating now. They reproduced quick decisions, delays and extra tests, but not ignoring red flags, dropping backup plans or passing the decision to the family. Studies should report and vary the chair's persona as they do the model, and correct agreement between runs for chance before calling it reliability.

Explore related subjects

cs.MA

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yitong Bai, Chengyi Zhang, Ziyang Wang. 2026-10-22. Consistent but Biased: Chair Personas Trade Noise for Bias in Multi-Agent Clinical Decisions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.31325

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

CollabFlow: Recursive Self-Improvement of Agent Collaboration

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) lets a system improve from its own outcomes; in LLM-based multi-agent systems, Agents refine one another within a task, and outcomes improve how they collaborate across tasks. However, existing multi-agent collaboration leaves this loop open: collaboration is pre-defined at the operator level, topology-only learning keeps verbatim exchange that propagates errors, and reward maximization on a system's own outcomes concentrates on a few teams. To address these challenges, we propose CollabFlow, an RSI system of Learned Agent Collaboration: a trainable Collab-Director constructs teams of complete Agents, a frozen executor runs them, and each round's outcomes retrain the director. Within each round, the edges of a collaboration graph carry protocols of Evidence-Conditioned Communication: a receiver adopts a differing answer only when the sender's evidence is stronger by a margin, so the director learns who communicates and how. Across rounds, we further propose Collaborative Trajectory Balance (CTB), a flow-based objective that credits each team once across its construction orders and targets a reward-proportional distribution over teams, so several good teams stay in play. We also bound how far this self-generated target moves between rounds, which shrinks as records accumulate. On twelve datasets, CollabFlow outperforms all baselines and keeps improving across rounds. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CollabFlow-631E.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

S$^2$-MAS: A Society-Scale Multi-Agent Simulation Framework with 500 Million Household Persona Agents

Simulating economic responses at society scale requires agents whose decisions reflect household circumstances and the effects of earlier actions. We introduce S$^2$-MAS, a society-scale multi-agent simulation framework built on 500 million synthetic household personas grounded in real-survey data. Its Genese engine separates decisions from state updates, while reusable financial scenarios and application ledgers track consumption, cash, debt and payments. Trained with SFT + RLCD on 2.93 million examples, sharp-421m-mlx achieves 74.55% accuracy and 38.37% question-macro F1 on one-shot consumer financial-choice tasks derived from held-out survey responses. Its accuracy exceeds GLM-5.3-Flash, Jev 1.13, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GPT-6-Luna and GPT-6-Astra in the common benchmark (full test for the first four; matched 500-group sample for Astra). We evaluate eight financial task families and simulate 12 million distinct household agents in paired purchase-funding conditions. Jointly raising purchase goals and approved credit limits increases consumption, with responses differing across age and income groups. Education, employment and household-size differences persist after age-income standardization and mainly reflect transitions from deferral to purchase. Asset and debt groups differ in cash drawdown, repayment and closing debt. A response-stratified 24-month panel varies purchase goals under a common credit product, with repayment and arrears updating subsequent offers. S$^2$-MAS links heterogeneous household decisions to evolving consumption, cash and repayment paths, supporting economic experiments across household groups, population scales and time horizons.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

When Is a Memory Safe Enough to Act On? Action-Conditioned Verification for Long-Lived Agents

Long-lived agents act on memory carried across sessions, and many of their actions are irreversible, so a stale memory can turn directly into harm. Existing work improves the memory itself --- retrieving, refreshing, or reconciling entries --- yet whether an entry must be re-checked before acting is not a property of the entry: the same remembered address can be used unchecked for a routine shipment but should be re-confirmed before a valuable one. We therefore study \emph{action-conditioned memory verification}: given a candidate action, decide which of its memory premises to re-verify and when to proceed or abstain, balancing execution risk, abstention, and verification cost. We formulate this as a sequential stopping problem, in which a verification is worth its cost only if it can change what the agent does next; under suitable verifier reliability and cost conditions, increasing action consequence can move the same memory through proceed, verify, and direct-abstention regimes. Building on this formulation, \textsc{AMV-Guard} is a practical verification gate that extracts the premises a candidate action rests on, calibrates beliefs about whether they are wrong, and selects checks by bounded value of information (VOI). On ToolSandbox, relative to a static policy given the same inputs, it lowers mean verification cost by 33.9\% while keeping 100\% safe-proceed recall and 0\% Gate harmful, and raises Proceed coverage from 38.83\% to 44.17\%; in a gate-core transfer to AppWorld, which carries over the stopping/VOI core but not the full structured pipeline, it lowers verification cost by 21.3\% at a small cost in safe-proceed recall and task success. These results suggest that verification effort should be set by what an agent is about to do, not only by how reliable a memory appears.

cs.MA↗