Multi-agent systems, in which multiple large language model agents solve problems through turn-based interaction, are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings such as medical diagnosis, legal analysis, and forensic decision-making. Their reliability can be at risk when single agents reason from incorrect or misleading context, e.g., from tool calls, since errors may propagate through agent interactions. This work studies this risk by injecting intent-based misinformation into benign single-agent and multi-agent systems across reasoning, knowledge, and alignment tasks. We find that misinformation can degrade single-agent performance and persists across multi-agent debate, with agents often retaining answers introduced by misinformed peers. Nevertheless, multi-agent debate reduces the resulting performance degradation compared to single-agent prompting, especially when most agents are not exposed to misinformation. Robustness depends on group composition and decision protocol. Consensus can be more stable than voting under peer pressure, while majorities can often steer misinformed agents back toward correct answers. Our results show that misinformation robustness in multi-agent systems depends on the underlying model and also on how agents exchange information and aggregate decisions.
LLM-based multi-agent systems promise effective collaborative reasoning, but communication may amplify local errors into collective risks, and while existing evaluations emphasize final outcomes, they leave the reliability and propagation dynamics of distributed information aggregation unclear, so we introduce ForesightSafety-TIDE, a controlled evaluation framework that strictly pairs all-honest collaboration with controlled deception by a key evidence holder and analyzes the aggregation process through multi-stage voting, testimony adoption, and evidence-root lineage propagation, and using 120 five-agent object-movement environments where partial observations jointly determine a unique endpoint, we evaluate 3 homogeneous LLM-based multi-agent systems, and across these paired conditions, aggregate truth recovery falls from 72.50% to 14.17%, with significant declines for every system, while process tracing and exit ablations show that a single false testimony is adopted more readily than truthful testimony, propagates to higher orders, and persists through honest agents after the deceiver exits, and observers without first-hand evidence suppress incorrect consensus but do not improve truth recovery, so together, these findings reveal both the fragility of distributed fact recovery and its underlying mechanism: false evidence gains collective influence through its adoption and continued propagation by other agents after entering communication.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled collaborative Multi-Agent (MA) systems, where interacting agents improve performance through diverse reasoning and iterative refinement. However, these systems remain vulnerable to error propagation, where early-stage information degrades downstream reasoning. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis of inter-agent communication to identify which information drives MA performance. We find that the absence of reasoning and verification in inter-agent communication significantly degrades performance. Based on these insights, we propose Category-Aware Recovery Augmentation (technique), which enforces the presence of critical information during communication. recovers up to 86.2% of failed cases. Our results highlight the key role of information quality in effective MA collaboration. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/cara_mas
Multi-agent AI systems can improve answer selection by allowing different language models to exchange reasoning traces, revise initial predictions, and support a final decision. However, such communication may also introduce reliability risks: reasoning from one agent can correct another agent's mistake, but it can also mislead an agent that was initially correct. This paper studies reliable multi-agent AI communication through reasoning exchange and runtime answer revision. We develop a framework in which agents first answer multiple-choice questions independently, then share reasoning traces and revise their decisions. We conduct numerical experiments where we evaluate whether this process improves accuracy, produces more positive than negative answer transitions, and remains effective across domains such as cybersecurity, networking, and general knowledge. The results help identify when multi-agent reasoning improves reliability and when it may propagate errors.