Social Dynamics as Critical Vulnerabilities that Undermine Objective Decision-Making in LLM Collectives

Multi-agent systems (MAS) assume that collaborating inherently improves Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning. We challenge this by demonstrating that simulated social pressure triggers an algorithmic Bystander Effect,'' inducing severe cognitive loafing. By evaluating 22,500 deterministic trajectories across 3 dataset contexts (GAIA, SWE-bench, Multi-Challenge) with 3 state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, we semantically audit internal reasoning traces against external outputs. We formalize the *Interaction Depth Limit* ($D_L$), the exact plurality threshold where an agent's logical sovereignty collapses into social compliance. Crucially, we uncover the *Sovereignty Gap*: models frequently compute the correct derivation internally but suffer Alignment Hallucinations'' -- actively subjugating empirical evidence to sycophantically appease a simulated swarm. We prove that multi-agent social load is strictly non-commutative; the "brand" identity of the ``Lead Anchor'' auditor disproportionately dictates the swarm's integrity. These findings expose architectural vulnerabilities, proving that unstructured multi-agent topologies can degrade independent reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as agents in simulations of social systems, yet it remains unclear when their behavior can be interpreted as a faithful proxy for human decision-making. Here we test LLM agents against a direct empirical benchmark: a large-scale networked Prisoner's Dilemma experiment with human participants. Using the same interaction protocol, payoff structure, and network topologies, we compare nine open-weight LLMs with the human data. The selected model reproduces several macro-level features of cooperation dynamics, including the early decline and later stabilization of cooperation. This aggregate agreement, however, does not extend uniformly to finer levels of behavior. LLM populations underestimate individual-level heterogeneity and generate conditional cooperation patterns that differ from those observed in humans. Adding a fraction of random agents improves some aspects of micro-level agreement, but does not remove the mismatch in decision rules. These findings reveal a macro--micro dissociation in LLM-based social agents: collective outcomes can appear human-like even when the underlying behavioral distributions and mechanisms are not. They suggest that validating LLM agents as human surrogates requires comparisons across aggregate dynamics, individual heterogeneity, and context-dependent decision rules, rather than outcome-level agreement alone.

Multi-agent LLM debates achieve strong performance on decision-making tasks as well as problem-solving benchmarks, yet their safety and fairness risks remain poorly understood. Notably, interaction can amplify the biases of single LLMs, raising concerns for real-world deployment. We identify the emergence of collective (often biased) norms in multi-agent LLM debates and show that noise (e.g., LLM sampling temperature) is a key driver. To explain this, we propose an analytical framework drawing on physics-inspired theoretical models of social dynamics. We predict a phase transition to collective bias when conformity surpasses a critical threshold given the LLMs' initial bias and debate noise. We test the theoretical predictions through controlled experiments and observe a finite-size crossover consistent with an underlying phase transition. We further find that agent heterogeneity suppresses emergence by smoothing (rounding) this transition. Finally, we show that these insights generalize to realistic decision-making tasks, including investment decisions and LLM-as-a-judge evaluation.