cs.AIAug 7, 2026

Does Splitting a Triage Decision Across Agents Hide Bias or Help Catch It? A Multi-Agent Simulation Study of LLM-Based Resource Allocation Under Audit Capacity Constraints

Authors: Paul-Peter Arslan

Abstract

Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias. Real deployments, however, rarely use a single agent: they use pipelines, with review steps meant to catch exactly this kind of failure. We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline (assessment, allocation, independent audit) instead of made and checked by one model alone. Using a synthetic disaster-triage simulator with paired cases that are clinically identical except for one demographic attribute, we run 192 episodes (2,304 resolved case pairs) on GPT-4o-mini comparing a single-agent control condition to a nine-agent pipeline under three independently varied pressure dimensions. We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions (6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.498). We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught: 30.0% of biased outcomes go entirely undetected, rising to 43.8% when the auditor is overloaded and falling to 18.4% when it is not. Decomposing this effect shows it is driven almost entirely by coverage (whether a case is reviewed at all, which collapses from 100.0% to 65.6% under load, p < 0.001) rather than by degraded judgment on the cases that are reviewed (81.6% vs. 85.7%, p = 1.000, direction reversed). A follow-up experiment shows that reordering the audit queue by estimated risk, rather than first-come-first-served, recovers most of the lost coverage under the same capacity constraint (65.6% to 91.7%, p = 0.028). We discuss the implications for any system that adds independent oversight to an LLM agent pipeline under resource constraints, and report the study's limitations honestly: one model, modest sample sizes, and no adversarial replication.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Sep 8, 2026cs.CL

The Audit Decides the Verdict: Instrument Effects Rival Demographic Bias in LLM Decision Audits

Whether a language model looks demographically biased can depend on how the audit asks its question. A charitable-aid benchmark reports that the same models favor minority applicants when rating requests one at a time and penalize some when ranking side by side. We test whether that reversal generalizes to hiring, lending, and medical triage: 40,726 requests to five models, applications differing only in the applicant's name, and a primary test fixed before collection. It does not. None of 36 planned contrasts survives correction. The rating advantage keeps its sign at roughly half the published size, and a precision extension bounds any hiring ranking penalty below the published effect, though the lending and triage ranking floors sit above that margin, so the exclusion is conclusive for hiring ranking and for rating in all three domains only. Planted disparities tracking their injected sizes and a directional replication on the original aid materials bound these nulls. The audit is livelier than the demographics: models recognize transparent audits nearly always, tie every identical-content comparison whether the varying detail is race or a hobby, and reward first-listed candidates as much as any demographic effect we measure. Audit verdicts reflect audit construction more than demographic bias.
Siddharth Vohra, Manikandan Ravikiran
Large Language Model BiasAlgorithm AuditingModel ComparisonVerdictRanking
AskPDF
Jun 15, 2026cs.AI

AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act?

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly take actions (screening applicants, recommending credit, triaging patients), yet fairness for LLMs is still measured by grading answers. We introduce AgentFairBench, a cheap, reproducible, multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in the actions of LLM agents. Grounded in a companion framework, the Bias Conduction Framework (BCF, restated here), it spans three regulator-anchored domains: hiring, lending, and medical triage. Synthetic, demographic-neutral profiles are evaluated in counterfactual matched sets that vary only a name-coded race x gender signal (in the Bertrand Mullainathan tradition), under four agent scaffolds of increasing agency (direct, chain-of-thought, multi-agent deliberation, tool-augmented). A NumPy-only harness computes counterfactual flip rate, mean absolute score difference (MASD), action-rate disparity, and tool-invocation disparity, with bootstrap confidence intervals, paired tests, and false-discovery-rate control, for single-digit dollars per model. A live leaderboard with a held-out private split and a contamination canary admits external models by submission. Our pilot (864 decisions plus a test-retest replication) carries a methodological lesson: comparing a six-group score spread against a two-run noise difference overstates disparity by ~ 2.4X through statistic arity alone. Against an arity matched noise floor and an omnibus group test, claude haiku 4 5 shows no demographic effect above sampling noise (0 of 120 pairwise and 0 of 9 omnibus contrasts survive correction); a planted-bias test confirms the instrument detects disparity when present. The contribution is a sound, sensitive, adoption-ready instrument, the arity matched null methodology, and open artifacts to scale it. Code, data, and harness are released under open licenses, with an anonymized review artifact.
Triveni Morla, Rohith Reddy Bellibaltu, Manpreet Singh +1
Large Language Model BiasLarge Language Model Agents
AskPDF
May 5, 2026cs.CL

EQUITRIAGE: A Fairness Audit of Gender Bias in LLM-Based Emergency Department Triage

Emergency department triage assigns patients an acuity score that determines treatment priority, and clinical evidence documents persistent gender disparities in human acuity assessment. As hospitals pilot large language models (LLMs) as triage decision support, a critical question is whether these models reproduce or mitigate known biases. We present EQUITRIAGE, a fairness audit of LLM-based ESI assignment evaluating five models (Gemini-3-Flash, Nemotron-3-Super, DeepSeek-V3.1, Mistral-Small-3.2, GPT-4.1-Nano) across 374,275 evaluations on 18,714 MIMIC-IV-ED vignettes under four prompt strategies. Of 9,368 originals, 9,346 are paired with a gender-swapped counterfactual. All five models produced flip rates above a pre-registered 5% threshold (9.9% to 43.8%). Two showed directional female undertriage (DeepSeek F/M 2.15:1, Gemini 1.34:1); two were near-parity; one had high sensitivity with weak male-direction asymmetry. DeepSeek's directional bias coexisted with a low outcome-linked calibration gap (0.013 against MIMIC-IV admission), a Chouldechova-style dissociation between within-group calibration and between-pair counterfactual invariance. Demographic blinding reduced Gemini's flip rate to 0.5%; an age-preserving blind variant left DeepSeek with residual F/M 1.25, implicating age as a residual channel. Chain-of-thought prompting degraded accuracy for all five models. A two-model ablation reveals opposite underlying mechanisms for the same directional phenotype: in Gemini the signal is emergent in the combined name+gender swap, while in DeepSeek the gender token alone carries it. EQUITRIAGE shows that group parity, counterfactual invariance, and gender calibration are distinct fairness properties, that intervention effectiveness is model-dependent, and that per-model counterfactual auditing should precede clinical deployment.
Richard J. Young, Alice M. Matthews
Large Language Model BiasTriageGenderFairness AuditsMimic-Iv DatasetsDeepseek-R1
AskPDF