Lying with Truths: Open-Channel Multi-Agent Collusion for Belief Manipulation via Generative Montage

As large language models (LLMs) transition to autonomous agents synthesizing real-time information, their reasoning capabilities introduce an unexpected attack surface. This paper introduces a novel threat where colluding agents steer victim beliefs using only truthful evidence fragments distributed through public channels, without relying on covert communications, backdoors, or falsified documents. By exploiting LLMs' overthinking tendency, we formalize the first cognitive collusion attack and propose Generative Montage: a Writer-Editor-Director framework that constructs deceptive narratives through adversarial debate and coordinated posting of evidence fragments, causing victims to internalize and propagate fabricated conclusions. To study this risk, we develop CoPHEME, a dataset derived from real-world rumor events, and simulate attacks across diverse LLM families. Our results show pervasive vulnerability across 14 LLM families: attack success rates reach 74.4% for proprietary models and 70.6% for open-weights models. Counterintuitively, stronger reasoning capabilities increase susceptibility, with reasoning-specialized models showing higher attack success than base models or prompts. Furthermore, these false beliefs then cascade to downstream judges, achieving over 60% deception rates, highlighting a socio-technical vulnerability in how LLM-based agents interact with dynamic information environments. Our implementation and data are available at: https://github.com/CharlesJW222/Lying_with_Truth/tree/main.

Chasing Consistency: Quantifying and Optimizing Human-Model Alignment in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

This paper presents a framework for evaluating and optimizing reasoning consistency in Large Language Models (LLMs) via a new metric, the Alignment Score, which quantifies the semantic alignment between model-generated reasoning chains and human-written reference chains in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. Empirically, we find that 2-hop reasoning chains achieve the highest Alignment Score. To explain this phenomenon, we define four key error types: logical disconnection, thematic shift, redundant reasoning, and causal reversal, and show how each contributes to the degradation of the Alignment Score. Building on this analysis, we further propose Semantic Consistency Optimization Sampling (SCOS), a method that samples and favors chains with minimal alignment errors, significantly improving Alignment Scores by an average of 29.84% with longer reasoning chains, such as in 3-hop tasks.