Organizations: Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy · GESS Department, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in social robots to support natural group interactions, yet their role in complex multi-party settings remains underexplored. In particular, it is unclear how LLM-driven robots decide when and why to intervene in group conversations. This paper investigates the intervention explanations generated by an LLM-based orchestrator in a multi-party interaction involving three human participants and two robots. We conducted a between-subjects study with 24 groups (66 university students), comparing a homogeneous condition (two robots with the same role, i.e., a mover) and a heterogeneous condition (two robots with different roles, i.e., a mover and an opposer). At each conversational turn, the LLM orchestrator decided whether to intervene and generated a textual explanation of its decision. We performed a thematic analysis of 610 intervention explanations, identifying five recurring themes. Results show that explanations are facilitation-oriented, emphasizing agreement, participation, and interaction flow. While patterns remain stable across conditions, role differentiation emerges: the mover supports coordination, whereas the opposer drives goal-oriented interventions. These findings contribute to explainable AI by characterizing how LLM-driven systems justify intervention decisions in real-time, multi-party human-robot interaction.
When automating plan generation for a real-world sequential decision problem, the goal is often not to replace the human planner, but to facilitate an iterative reasoning and elicitation process, where the human's role is to guide the AI planner according to their preferences and expertise. In this context, explanations that respond to users' questions are crucial to improve their understanding of potential solutions and increase their trust in the system. To enable natural interaction with such a system, we present a multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) architecture that is agnostic to the explanation framework and enables user- and context-dependent interactive explanations. We also describe an instantiation of this framework for goal-conflict explanations, which we use to conduct a user study comparing the LLM-powered interaction with a baseline template-based explanation interface.
Multi-agent systems (MAS) assume that collaborating inherently improves Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning. We challenge this by demonstrating that simulated social pressure triggers an algorithmic Bystander Effect,'' inducing severe cognitive loafing. By evaluating 22,500 deterministic trajectories across 3 dataset contexts (GAIA, SWE-bench, Multi-Challenge) with 3 state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, we semantically audit internal reasoning traces against external outputs. We formalize the \textit{Interaction Depth Limit} ($D_L$), the exact plurality threshold where an agent's logical sovereignty collapses into social compliance. Crucially, we uncover the \textit{Sovereignty Gap}: models frequently compute the correct derivation internally but suffer Alignment Hallucinations'' -- actively subjugating empirical evidence to sycophantically appease a simulated swarm. We prove that multi-agent social load is strictly non-commutative; the "brand" identity of the ``Lead Anchor'' auditor disproportionately dictates the swarm's integrity. These findings expose architectural vulnerabilities, proving that unstructured multi-agent topologies can degrade independent reasoning.
We present a structured large-language-model (LLM) architecture for zero-shot human--robot coordination in a cooperative construction task with private goal views. Guided by a Dec-POMDP formulation, the architecture decomposes decision-making into (i) action-conditioned Theory-of-Mind (ToM) inference, (ii) hierarchical planning, (iii) conversation interpretation, (iv) action verification, and (v) feedback-based replanning. We compare the proposed method with an ablation without ToM inference and a multi-agent reinforcement-learning policy trained offline over many goal pairs. In human-participant experiments, the proposed method required fewer interaction steps and yielded higher post-interaction trust ratings than both baselines. These results suggest that systematically decomposing the team decision problem, using LLMs as tractable surrogates for otherwise intractable inference and planning computations, and retaining conventional verification for physical feasibility can improve both task coordination and the human experience.
Dong Hae Mangalindan, Anand Gokhale, Francesco Bullo +1