Reaching global agreement from purely local interactions is a defining problem of collective intelligence, and most models of it assume that all agents share a single communication protocol. We ask what happens when they do not. Using a Neural Cellular Automaton in which a population of cells must solve the density classification task, agreeing on a global majority that no individual can observe, we introduce languages'' as sub-populations that read one another's messages through a translation with a tunable linguistic distance''. We find that linguistic distance slows consensus, that it produces mild divergence between groups rather than full fragmentation, and that a collective whose shared rule was trained under diverse protocols is robust to mismatch; a homogeneously trained one is not. The findings hold on both a ring and a two-dimensional grid, and admit a natural reading as Ising relaxation, in which a foreign-language region acts as a boundary defect that leaves the system in a higher-energy, partially ordered state. These patterns are qualitatively consistent with effects reported in human group studies, suggesting that distance between communication protocols is a minimal mechanism sufficient to produce them, without anything language-specific.
Multi-agent language-model systems increasingly route local interactions, yet the runtime interaction graph is often treated as an implementation detail. We study convention formation in open-weight LM populations spanning 1.1B-32B parameters with a naming-game protocol. Restricted first-token scores over tokenizer-safe labels let us measure prompt-conditioned score-state distributions, construct state-similarity graphs, and separate sampled-label agreement from latent state-space consensus. Across controlled interventions, in the main open-weight repair grids, retained partner-label evidence is necessary but not sufficient: homophilous threshold-similarity routing deletes cross-basin exposure and amplifies fragmentation, while bridge-seeking routing often repairs fragmentation when memory is available. In a three-seed mixed four-model grid, threshold-similarity produces no final behavioral or state consensus in 189 setting-seed runs, whereas state-component and label-disagreement bridges recover final behavioral consensus in 14/18 retained-memory runs. Across homogeneous model populations, retained history generally shifts fragmented dynamics toward consensus; the clearest case is Qwen2.5-32B, which reaches stable behavioral and final state consensus in all 18 retained-history well-mixed settings, while threshold-similarity reaches neither form of consensus in 189 settings. Robustness over state thresholds, population size, and vocabulary size preserves the qualitative ordering, and early-window graph-energy features provide useful within-grid diagnostics.
Reaching consensus on massive discussion networks is critical for reducing noise and achieving optimal collective outcomes. However, the natural tendency of humans to preserve their initial ideas constrains the emergence of global solutions. To address this, Collective Intelligence (CI) platforms facilitate the discovery of globally superior solutions. We introduce a dynamical system based on the standard O(N) model to drive the aggregation of semantically similar ideas. The system consists of users represented as nodes in a d=2 lattice with nearest-neighbor interactions, where their ideas are represented by semantic vectors computed with a pretrained embedding model. We analyze the system's equilibrium states as a function of the coupling parameter β. Our results show that β>0 drives the system toward a ferromagnetic-like phase (global consensus), while β<0 induces an antiferromagnetic-like state (maximum dissent), where users maximize semantic distance from their neighbors. This framework offers a controllable method for managing the tradeoff between cohesion and diversity in CI platforms.
Full-consensus rates are often treated as indicators of collective cognition, yet depend on how participation and final states are operationalized. We replayed 100 held-out human Wason groups with matched large language model (LLM) agent groups, seeding one belief-anchored agent per participant's pre-discussion answer and scoring agents and people with the same code. Across human scoring definitions, estimates ranged from 24.0% to 57.0%; about one fifth of participants never posted, whereas agents almost always did. Agent groups remained more consensual in two post-unblinding sensitivity analyses: the submit-based comparison (n = 98) yielded gaps of 34.0 and 43.9 percentage points for chat and reasoning modes, and the participation-matched comparison (n = 45) yielded gaps of 34.1 and 44.4 points. These complementary routes reduced different measurement asymmetries yet converged within 0.5 percentage points. The gap persisted without early stopping and under a reparameterization removing the memorizable answer; reasoning-mode groups then agreed nearly unanimously, mostly on incorrect answers. Simulated consensus did not track collective accuracy, and belief-anchored agent groups were biased estimators of the human group-outcome distribution in this setting. These analyses provide a scoring-explicit basis for assessing simulated-group estimates of human deliberative outcomes.