When Does Communication Help? Beyond Spectral Descriptions of Collective Intelligence

Multi-agent LLM systems can improve reasoning by pooling diverse perspectives, but their effectiveness depends on coordinating communication, particularly in hidden-profile settings where each agent holds only part of the evidence required for a correct decision. Existing protocols, including fixed schedules, round-robin exchange, and unstructured debate, provide no guarantee that a conversational action is appropriate. We propose Consilience, an inference-time orchestration framework that both steers and certifies multi-agent communication under distributed private information. At each turn, Consilience summarizes the discussion using a compact state capturing uncertainty, disagreement, evidence gain, redundancy, and premature consensus, then selects both a communication intervention (challenge, clarify, seek evidence, or route) and an appropriate speaker. Its central contribution is a round-wise conformal calibration procedure that provides a distribution-free, finite-sample guarantee: at each discussion round, conditional on reaching that round, the one-step regret of a controller's proposed action is bounded by a calibrated threshold with marginal probability at least 1 - alpha; an acceptance mechanism enforces the same guarantee for the executed action by replacing inadmissible proposals. On HiddenBench-style hidden-profile tasks spanning 12 open and closed weight language models, Consilience improves decision accuracy and communication efficiency over fixed and unstructured discussion protocols, sometimes surpassing a full-information baseline where every agent observes all evidence. These results demonstrate that certified adaptive communication control can be more valuable than increasing information availability, providing a practical mechanism for reliable multi-agent LLM coordination.

Science advances not in isolation but through collaboration, yet existing agentic systems capture little of this. Whether communicating agents help remains an open question with mixed prior results. We show that test-time communication can substantially outperform independent parallel attempts on challenging tasks, where sharing a breakthrough can push the whole group forward. We first study the effect of scaling multi-agent test-time communication, where agents have no predefined roles and communicate via a shared directory, on ARC-AGI-3, a benchmark requiring novel problem solving. We find that a team of $k$ communicating agents, team@$k$, matches the success rate of $4k$ independent agents, and this advantage grows with $k$, suggesting gains compound with scale. The effect is not merely efficiency: a task that no single agent can solve, a team of agents can solve reliably. Furthermore, these gains transfer to research-oriented tasks, given sufficient compute. On polyomino packing, communicating agents outperform best@$k$ and exceed the prior best-known score. On MNIST classifier compression, communication surpasses the best-known human solution. A team of four agents produced a 1,957-byte classifier submission achieving 99.4% test accuracy, smaller than both the best-known human solution and the best single-agent result. These gains are not unconditional. Independent agents may outperform communication when compute is limited or when a clear measure of progress is absent. However, under sufficient compute and clear feedback, multi-agent communication consistently yields stronger results.

As AI agents become increasingly connected through networks and take on tasks that require negotiation and joint decision-making, a systematic approach is needed to assess how their views converge and what information supports their decisions. We present an evaluation framework that treats consensus formation as the evolution of publicly stated positions toward a shared region, using accumulated communication history as context. The framework tracks position trajectories, group dispersion, and information expressed in public messages. Two case studies examine staffing decisions based on distributed facts and decisions requiring agents to reconcile duplicate information and a cancelled contract. Results from 1,872 completed runs associate sharing explanations with more accurate group decisions, while the second task reveals persistent disagreement despite accurate aggregate answers. Membership-change experiments provide a complementary evaluation. By separating convergence among agents from progress toward a task's full-information answer, the framework relates decision accuracy and bounded disagreement to the information available during the exchange.