Most LLM Conformity Needs No Speaker: Measuring the Speaker-Free Floor in Peer-Pressure Benchmarks
Authors: Yibo Hu, Jiaming Qu
Organizations: Illinois Institute of Technology · Amazon
Abstract
LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response. We show that most of this apparent conformity survives even after the peer is removed. The reason is a confound: standard conformity prompts mix two cues at once, the presence of a speaker and the repeated wrong answer itself. Existing benchmarks vary these cues together, so they cannot tell how much of the revision actually depends on the speaker. We introduce a no-source condition: the same asserted answer with the explicit speaker removed. Across six open-weight LLMs and seven QA and reasoning datasets, this condition alone causes harmful revision in 66.5% of initially correct cases, compared with 10.3% under a plain re-ask. The effect also remains when the repeated answer is paraphrased and when answer options are hidden in an open-ended setting. Source framing mainly modulates this floor: expert-panel framing raises it, while minimal person labels do not reliably raise it. When models flip, they are usually confidently wrong, and simple recalibration does not recover the original answer. Source attribution still matters, but it should be measured as an increment above this speaker-free floor. The methodological lesson is that conformity benchmarks should first measure what remains after the speaker is removed; without this step, benchmarks may mistake repeated text for social influence.
Prior work on LLM conformity largely measures discrete answer flips under verifiable labels. Open-ended revisions require a different measurement strategy because answer quality is graded, latent, and judged imperfectly. We introduce an experimental protocol implemented across a pooled main peer-condition corpus and separately constructed decomposition corpora, allowing us to separate ordinary re-answering, candidate-content exposure, a bundled peer-presentation residual, and directional judge sensitivity to visible peer context. Across four open-weight generators and three benchmarks, all-wrong peer input produces the lowest-quality revisions in every generator-dataset cell. Blind and informed ratings of identical answers also differ by evaluator: one judge shifts toward the peer-endorsed position, two shift away, one is approximately neutral, and GPT-4o and GPT-5.4-mini audits are likewise non-neutral. Finally, an anchor audit shows that terse correct anchors can be misread often enough to destabilize the latent scale unless calibration is checked explicitly. These results support four conclusions: flip rates are insufficient as a complete measure of open-ended conformity, wrong peers harm open-ended revision, evaluators are not neutral, and anchor calibration is necessary.
Large language models are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, where they see and respond to other agents' answers. A key risk is conformity: a model may abandon its own answer simply because others agree on a different one. Prior studies show that LLMs often revise toward a majority answer, but it remains unclear whether these revisions help correct mistakes as often as they introduce new errors. In this paper, we conduct a controlled study in which an LLM first answers a question, then sees simulated peer responses before making a final decision. We manipulate two social cues: consensus structure and authority labels assigned to peers, and measure how they influence beneficial and harmful revisions. Across four open-weight LLMs and seven QA datasets, we find that peer agreement makes it much easier to mislead initially correct models than to correct initially wrong ones. Authority labels make models more likely to choose the endorsed answer, regardless of whether it is correct. More concerningly, generic reasoning interventions such as chain-of-thought and reflection do not reliably reduce harmful revision while preserving beneficial revision. These findings suggest that multi-agent LLM systems should verify peer answers rather than simply aggregate them.
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful black-box systems, making it difficult to discern whether their answers reflect stable internal beliefs or superficial pattern matching. We identify cross-contextual consistency as an underutilized behavioral property of LLMs: a credible answer should remain stable when the same task is placed under topic-aligned, content-neutral contextual variation. Building on this intuition, we operationalize Cross-Contextual Consistency (C3) by comparing model generations under original and perturbed prompts. Across 26 models and six benchmarks spanning reasoning, factuality, and code generation, we find that answers with smaller cross-contextual shifts are more likely to be correct or factual. We demonstrate that C3 provides a complementary axis of evaluation and can serve as a benchmark usefulness diagnostic, identifying which portions of a benchmark remain informative even when aggregated scores are widely considered "saturate".