# arXiv cs.AI: Phantom Consensus: Measuring Social Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLM Decision-Making [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-phantom-consensus-measuring-social-reasoning-in-0f43fbad) Disha Sheshanarayana, Rajat Subhra Pal, Manjira Sinha and Tirthankar Dasgupta call it “phantom consensus” when LLM agents shift public decisions after ambiguous social signals and misreport what others privately judged, although recorded private judgments do not support the apparent agreement. Their PHANTOM-Bench separates private judgments, public decisions, estimates of others’ judgments, transparency-based recovery and control conditions. Across nine closed- and open-weight models, the authors report that ambiguous public signals degraded decision quality and sometimes turned correct private group judgments into incorrect public outcomes. Public accuracy fell by as much as 47.8 percentage points, and collective rationality failures reached 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. Revealing recorded private decisions repaired many failures without revealing the gold label, but recovery varied across models. The authors argue that evaluating multi-agent LLM systems requires checking whether apparent agreement reflects independently measured private judgments, not just measuring final agreement. The abstract describes controlled collectives; it does not establish how often this pattern occurs in deployed systems. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 6, 2026 (2026-11-06). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T13:34:35.041Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T05:00:53.259Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T13:33:15.630Z. - [Phantom Consensus: Measuring Social Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLM Decision-Making](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Limits The abstract describes results in controlled LLM collectives and does not establish how often phantom consensus occurs in deployed systems. The abstract reports results across nine models but does not identify them or provide further methodological detail in the supplied evidence. ## Open question Do these effects also occur outside the controlled LLM collectives studied here? ## Source-stated The authors define phantom consensus as public decision shifts after ambiguous social signals paired with inaccurate reports of other agents’ private judgments, despite private judgments not supporting the apparent consensus. > LLMs shift their public decisions after observing ambiguous social signals while reporting inaccurate estimates of what other agents privately judged - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated PHANTOM-Bench measures private judgments, public decisions after ambiguous signals, estimates of group judgments, transparency-based recovery and control conditions. > we introduce PHANTOM-Bench, a benchmark that separates isolated private judgments, public decisions after ambiguous social signals - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated Across nine models, the authors report that ambiguous public signals degraded decision quality and could turn correct private group judgments into incorrect public outcomes. > Across nine closed- and open-weight models, ambiguous public signals consistently degrade decision quality and can turn correct private group judgments into incorrect public collective outcomes. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated The authors report public accuracy drops of up to 47.8 percentage points and collective rationality failures reaching 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. > Public accuracy drops by as much as 47.8 percentage points, and collective rationality failures reach 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated Revealing recorded private decisions repaired many failures without revealing the gold label, with recovery varying across models. > Revealing the agents' recorded private decisions repairs many failures without revealing the gold label, although recovery varies across models. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated The authors argue that evaluation should test whether apparent agreement reflects independently measured private judgments, not only final agreement. > evaluating multi-agent LLM systems requires measuring not only final agreement, but whether that agreement reflects independently measured private judgments - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source and contributor context Sheshanarayana, Disha, Pal, Rajat Subhra, Sinha, Manjira, Dasgupta, Tirthankar · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Large language model A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model) ## Open weights A model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted. - [Definition reference](https://opensource.org/ai/open-weights) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 9892e5e1-6405-4fab-8164-1a1b21b81f4c. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T13:34:35.041Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 39046139d2e0f70b7e3dd8f427339e15cb27d31129da342f353fe292464a9b48. Source text hash: 34629a5ae581a59cfb20e348dc4c57433f664822d557a8b2fcb168666675d4d5. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-12T13:34:35.041Z Disha Sheshanarayana, Rajat Subhra Pal, Manjira Sinha and Tirthankar Dasgupta call it “phantom consensus” when LLM agents shift public decisions after ambiguous social signals and misreport what others privately judged, although recorded private judgments do not support the apparent agreement. Their PHANTOM-Bench separates private judgments, public decisions, estimates of others’ judgments, transparency-based recovery and control conditions. Across nine closed- and open-weight models, the authors report that ambiguous public signals degraded decision quality and sometimes turned correct private group judgments into incorrect public outcomes. Public accuracy fell by as much as 47.8 percentage points, and collective rationality failures reached 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. Revealing recorded private decisions repaired many failures without revealing the gold label, but recovery varied across models. The authors argue that evaluating multi-agent LLM systems requires checking whether apparent agreement reflects independently measured private judgments, not just measuring final agreement. The abstract describes controlled collectives; it does not establish how often this pattern occurs in deployed systems. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 6, 2026 (2026-11-06). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T13:34:35.041Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T05:00:53.259Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T13:33:15.630Z. - [Phantom Consensus: Measuring Social Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLM Decision-Making](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Limits The abstract describes results in controlled LLM collectives and does not establish how often phantom consensus occurs in deployed systems. The abstract reports results across nine models but does not identify them or provide further methodological detail in the supplied evidence. ## Open question Do these effects also occur outside the controlled LLM collectives studied here? ## Source-stated The authors define phantom consensus as public decision shifts after ambiguous social signals paired with inaccurate reports of other agents’ private judgments, despite private judgments not supporting the apparent consensus. > LLMs shift their public decisions after observing ambiguous social signals while reporting inaccurate estimates of what other agents privately judged - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated PHANTOM-Bench measures private judgments, public decisions after ambiguous signals, estimates of group judgments, transparency-based recovery and control conditions. > we introduce PHANTOM-Bench, a benchmark that separates isolated private judgments, public decisions after ambiguous social signals - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated Across nine models, the authors report that ambiguous public signals degraded decision quality and could turn correct private group judgments into incorrect public outcomes. > Across nine closed- and open-weight models, ambiguous public signals consistently degrade decision quality and can turn correct private group judgments into incorrect public collective outcomes. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated The authors report public accuracy drops of up to 47.8 percentage points and collective rationality failures reaching 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. > Public accuracy drops by as much as 47.8 percentage points, and collective rationality failures reach 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated Revealing recorded private decisions repaired many failures without revealing the gold label, with recovery varying across models. > Revealing the agents' recorded private decisions repairs many failures without revealing the gold label, although recovery varies across models. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source-stated The authors argue that evaluation should test whether apparent agreement reflects independently measured private judgments, not only final agreement. > evaluating multi-agent LLM systems requires measuring not only final agreement, but whether that agreement reflects independently measured private judgments - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08971) ## Source and contributor context Sheshanarayana, Disha, Pal, Rajat Subhra, Sinha, Manjira, Dasgupta, Tirthankar · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Large language model A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model) ## Open weights A model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted. - [Definition reference](https://opensource.org/ai/open-weights) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 9892e5e1-6405-4fab-8164-1a1b21b81f4c. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T13:34:35.041Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 39046139d2e0f70b7e3dd8f427339e15cb27d31129da342f353fe292464a9b48. Source text hash: 34629a5ae581a59cfb20e348dc4c57433f664822d557a8b2fcb168666675d4d5. ### uncertain — 2026-11-12T13:34:35.041Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: 9892e5e1-6405-4fab-8164-1a1b21b81f4c attribution — pass: The four named authors match the source listing. The definition, findings and argument are attributed to them with phrasing such as 'the authors report' and 'the authors argue.' The 'arXiv cs.AI' title prefix follows the publisher metadata, although the paper's primary category is cs.MA. This is not a material misattribution. > Authors:Disha Sheshanarayana, Rajat Subhra Pal, Manjira Sinha, Tirthankar Dasgupta summary — uncertain: The reading faithfully states the definition, benchmark, results, repair and the authors' argument. A non-specialist would still lack two things. First, the context that multi-agent LLM systems increasingly combine judgments from several model instances, which is why the finding matters. Second, explanations of 'gold label' (the known correct answer) and 'collective rationality failures.' Smallest repair: open with the abstract's framing sentence, and add term-library tooltips for gold label, collective rationality failure and closed-/open-weight models. The question is substantive and non-leading. > Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly aggregate judgments across model instances, but reasoning about other agents can itself introduce failure. date — pass: originalPublished 2026-11-06 matches the v1 submission date. It is not the later feed date of 2026-11-09. > \[Submitted on 6 Nov 2026\] support — pass: All six claims are verbatim-supported by the abstract, including the 47.8-point and 47.3% figures, the scope limited to the most susceptible setting, and the variable recovery. 'Sometimes turned' fairly renders the source's 'can turn.' The limitations and the closing caveat about deployed systems are framed as gaps, not as invented claims. The reading implies no unsupported benefits or costs. > Public accuracy drops by as much as 47.8 percentage points, and collective rationality failures reach 47.3% in the most susceptible setting. media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the most direct access to the source. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/0f43fbad9cd9274d7bf16e8aee8ea6c1c6ecc6bdb5d7ee2a65c04d57969983aa/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-phantom-consensus-measuring-social-reasoning-in-0f43fbad.json)