Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
MIT CSAILAmerican International School ViennaBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBUDartmouthGeorgia State UniversityKCLMcGillNorthwesternPoliMiSubstrate LabsTechnische Hochschule L眉beckUBCUMDUT AustinAug 4, 2026arXiv:2608.03744This study investigates the vulnerability of clinical decision support systems, specifically committees of language-model agents, to shortcut gaming鈥攚here agents exploit cues that are rewarded by benchmarks but ignored by clinicians. Through experiments across diverse datasets, the authors reveal that while Gemini committees resist these cues individually, social influence significantly increases the likelihood of adopting incorrect answers, with a 38% adoption rate when peers assert the same wrong answer. The findings highlight the challenges of oversight in multi-agent systems, where traditional methods fail to distinguish between genuine agreement and shortcut adoption, emphasizing the need for independent referees to identify gaming behaviors effectively.
Social influence can lead clinical decision support agents to adopt incorrect answers at alarming rates, revealing a critical flaw in multi-agent oversight.
Clinical decision support is moving toward committees of language-model agents deliberating on a shared workspace. We ask whether such committees can be gamed by shortcuts, cues a benchmark rewards but a clinician would ignore. Across seven cohorts on six public datasets spanning text (MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, MIMIC-CXR reports), imaging (NIH ChestX-ray14, MIMIC-CXR-JPG, CheXpert) and tabular ICU records (SUPPORT2), Gemini committees resist these cues in isolation (flip 5-16%), yet a socially plausible shortcut spreads: when two peers assert the same wrong answer, the holdout under test adopts it in 38% of cases, as does a false "pre-screen" system flag, on both capability tiers. Of three oversight agents, a gate cannot separate adoption from honest agreement (false-positive rate 100%); a same-lineage judge reading only the transcript flags adoption on text (precision 100%, recall 93%) but collapses onto the gate in imaging; a referee that privately re-queries the holdout transfers to imaging (77-88% precision, 13-21% false-positive rate). Tripling a cue's visual salience does not move contagion, whereas a second peer voice raises it by half again. Gaming a hidden rubric is near-silent: only 1/10 text and 1/134 imaging drifters name the rubric they moved toward. What games a committee is social plausibility, and only a referee independent of self-report catches it. Code: https://github.com/criticaldata/benchmaxxing
