The Inverse-Wisdom Law: Architectural Tribalism and the Consensus Paradox in Agentic Swarms
Authors: Dahlia Shehata, Ming Li
Organizations: University of Waterloo · Canada
Abstract
As AI transitions toward multi-agent systems (MAS) to solve complex workflows, research paradigms operate on the axiomatic assumption that agent collaboration mirrors the "Wisdom of the Crowd". We challenge this assumption by formalizing the Consensus Paradox: a phenomenon where agentic swarms prioritize internal architectural agreement over external logical truth. Through a 36 experiments encompassing 12,804 trajectories across three state-of-the-art (SOTA) benchmarks (GAIA, Multi-Challenge, and SWE-bench), we prove the Inverse-Wisdom Law: in kinship-dominant swarms, adding logical agents increases the stability of erroneous trajectories rather than the probability of truth. The introduction of additional logical audits converges the system toward a Logic Saturation where internal entropy hits zero while factual error hits unity. By evaluating the interaction between the 3 preeminent SOTA models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and GPT-5.4), we establish the Architectural Tribalism Asymmetry as a mechanistic law of transformer weights. We demonstrate that terminal swarm integrity is strictly gated by the synthesizer's receptive logic, rather than aggregate agent quality. We define the Tribalism Coefficient and the Sycophantic Weight as the primary mechanistic determinants of swarm failure. Finally, we establish the Heterogeneity Mandate as a foundational safety requirement for resilient agentic architectures.
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 \textit{Interaction Depth Limit} ($D_L$), the exact plurality threshold where an agent's logical sovereignty collapses into social compliance. Crucially, we uncover the \textit{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.
The transition from single-turn models to Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) promises enhanced problem-solving capabilities, yet the centralized orchestration topology remains a critical point of fragility. To analyze this, we propose a Mean-Field Entropy Dynamics framework, modeling the orchestration process as a system governed by the competing forces of task resolution and cumulative context loading. To facilitate validation, we introduce Inverse Workflow Generation (IWG), a multi-agent pipeline that synthesizes process-verifiable, high-complexity benchmarks with dense intermediate checkpoints. We demonstrate that our entropy dynamics model fits empirical trajectories, providing physically interpretable parameters that quantify system stability and performance collapse. Crucially, our analysis uncovers a ``Reasoning Trap": while reasoning-heavy models excel in isolated tasks, they frequently fail as orchestrators due to context squeezing. Elucidating the physical mechanisms underlying the Orchestrator and quantifying systemic uncertainty offers insights for the MASs' architectural design.
When multiple LLM agents solve the same problem, standard practice compresses each agent's reasoning into a majority vote or layered synthesis, treating agreement as the finish line. We show this is unnecessarily lossy: an LLM aggregator that reads complete reasoning traces recovers correct solutions even when agents unanimously agree, with beneficial corrections consistently outweighing harmful ones -- the \emph{aggregation paradox}. Majority voting has a ceiling that perturbation diversity does not raise (error correlations are identical); the aggregator's gain comes from trace-level complementarity, assembling correct intermediate steps from minority chains that voting discards. These findings motivate Self-Consistent Mixture of Agents which generates trace diversity through semantic-preserving input perturbations, safeguards the majority via anchored refinement with provable non-degradation guarantees, and always synthesizes -- never gates on consensus. A single model with perturbation-induced trace variation outperforms heterogeneous model pools across structured reasoning, PhD-level science, competition mathematics, and competitive programming. The unit of aggregation should be the reasoning trace, not the answer.
Shreyas Fadnavis, Praitayini Kanakaraj, Felix Wyss