Large Language Model Agents

Autonomous multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed to investigate operational incidents and produce structured diagnostic reports. Their trustworthiness hinges on whether each claim is grounded in observed evidence rather than model-internal inference. Existing groundedness evaluators (binary classifiers, LLM-as-judge scalars, self-correction loops) treat supporting evidence as interchangeable and emit a single signal that offers no principled control over downstream action. We present GSAR, a grounding-evaluation and replanning framework that (i) partitions claims into a four-way typology (grounded, ungrounded, contradicted, complementary), giving first-class standing to non-redundant alternative perspectives; (ii) assigns evidence-type-specific weights reflecting epistemic strength; (iii) computes an asymmetric contradiction-penalised weighted groundedness score; and (iv) couples that score to a three-tier decision function (proceed, regenerate, replan) driving a bounded-iteration outer loop under an explicit compute budget. We formalise the algorithm, prove six structural properties, and evaluate five design claims on FEVER with gold Wikipedia evidence under four independently-trained LLM judges (gpt-5.4, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, gemini-2.5-pro). Every ablation reproduces in the same direction on every judge: bootstrap 95% CIs on the rho=0 effect exclude 0 on all four; the no-complementary ablation under Opus 4.7 has CI [-96,-68] of 200; at n=1000 three independent judges converge to DeltaS(rho=0)=+0.058. A head-to-head against Vectara HHEM-2.1-Open is included. To our knowledge, GSAR is the first published groundedness framework coupling evidence-typed scoring with tiered recovery under an explicit compute budget.

Large language model-based agents have recently emerged as powerful approaches for solving dynamic and multi-step tasks. Most existing agents employ planning mechanisms to guide long-term actions in dynamic environments. However, current planning approaches face a fundamental limitation that they operate at a fixed granularity level. Specifically, they either provide excessive detail for simple tasks or insufficient detail for complex ones, failing to achieve an optimal balance between simplicity and complexity. Drawing inspiration from the principle of \textit{progressive refinement} in cognitive science, we propose \textbf{AdaPlan-H}, a self-adaptive hierarchical planning mechanism that mimics human planning strategies. Our method initiates with a coarse-grained macro plan and progressively refines it based on task complexity. It generates self-adaptive hierarchical plans tailored to the varying difficulty levels of different tasks, which can be optimized by imitation learning and capability enhancement. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly improves task execution success rates while mitigating overplanning at the planning level, providing a flexible and efficient solution for multi-step complex decision-making tasks. To contribute to the community, our code and data will be made publicly available at https://github.com/import-myself/AHP.

Existing multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) frameworks for code generation typically use execution feedback and improve iteratively using Input/Output (I/O) test cases. However, this does not work for scientific workflows, where I/O test cases do not exist, and generating them requires solving the very problem at hand. To address this, we introduce MOSAIC, a training-free multi-agent framework for scientific code generation without I/O supervision. Instead of execution feedback, MOSAIC employs a student-teacher knowledge distillation framework that grounds generation through domain-specific examples and structured problem decomposition. To further mitigate hallucinations across chained subproblems, we introduce a Consolidated Context Window (CCW) for maintaining consistent reasoning across agents. Experiments on the SciCode benchmark show that MOSAIC improves accuracy, executability, and numerical precision over existing approaches while relying on lightweight models.

Automatically generating formal ontologies from unstructured natural language remains a central challenge in knowledge engineering. While large language models (LLMs) show promise, it remains unclear which architectural design choices drive generation quality and why current approaches fail. We present a controlled experimental study using domain-specific insurance contracts to investigate these questions. We first establish a single-agent LLM baseline, identifying key failure modes such as poor Ontology Design Pattern compliance, structural redundancy, and ineffective iterative repair. We then introduce a multi-agent architecture that decomposes ontology construction into four artifact-driven roles: Domain Expert, Manager, Coder, and Quality Assurer. We evaluate performance across architectural quality (via a panel of heterogeneous LLM judges) and functional usability (via competency question driven SPARQL evaluation with complementary retrieval augmented generation based assessment). Results show that the multi-agent approach significantly improves structural quality and modestly enhances queryability, with gains driven primarily by front-loaded planning. These findings highlight planning-first, artifact-driven generation as a promising and more auditable path toward scalable automated ontology engineering.

Large language model (LLM) agents often struggle in long-context interactions. As the agent accumulates more interaction history, context management approaches such as sliding window and prompt compression may omit earlier structured information that later steps rely on. Recent retrieval-based memory systems surface relevant content but still overlook the causal and logical structure needed for multi-step reasoning. We introduce ContextWeaver, a selective and dependency-structured memory framework that organizes an agent's interaction trace into a graph of reasoning steps and selects the relevant context for future actions. Unlike prior context management approaches, ContextWeaver supports: (1) dependency-based construction and traversal that link each step to the earlier steps it relies on; (2) compact dependency summarization that condenses root-to-step reasoning paths into reusable units; and (3) a lightweight validation layer that incorporates execution feedback. On the SWE-Bench Verified and Lite benchmarks, ContextWeaver improves performance over a sliding-window baseline in pass@1, while reducing reasoning steps and token usage. Our observations suggest that modeling logical dependencies provides a stable and scalable memory mechanism for LLM agents that use tools.

Large language models (LLM) agents may offer tools to predict human responses to surveys. A common technique for defining these agents uses only demographics, for example country, age, gender, employment status, income, education and marital status. We compare the predictive accuracy of demographic agents to that of survey agents defined with a larger set of in-domain survey responses. We test both approaches in predicting responses to the multidisciplinary, cross-national Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), focusing on five variables from three policy-relevant constructs around personal finance. In these three constructs, we observe that, compared to survey agents trained on broader data, demographics-only agents (1) exhibited a central tendency bias, skewing answers toward population means, and (2) were unrealistically accurate, failing to reproduce the incorrect answers and "don't know" responses typical of human respondents. These performance differences are further substantiated through the replication of a hierarchical regression analysis from prior retirement planning research. Agents based solely on demographic information reproduce the outcome that financial risk tolerance, future time perspective, and knowledge of retirement planning each are predictive of retirement savings. However, only the survey-anchored agents succeed in reproducing the interaction among these three factors. These findings suggest caution in using only demographics to define LLM agents for predicting survey responses.

Collective intelligence refers to the ability of a group to achieve outcomes beyond what any individual member can accomplish alone. As large language model agents scale to populations of millions, a key question arises: Does collective intelligence emerge spontaneously from scale? We present the first empirical evaluation of this question in a large-scale autonomous agent society. Studying MoltBook, a platform hosting over two million agents, we introduce Superminds Test, a hierarchical framework that probes society-level intelligence using controlled Probing Agents across three tiers: joint reasoning, information synthesis, and basic interaction. Our experiments reveal a stark absence of collective intelligence. The society fails to outperform individual frontier models on complex reasoning tasks, rarely synthesizes distributed information, and often fails even trivial coordination tasks. Platform-wide analysis further shows that interactions remain shallow, with threads rarely extending beyond a single reply and most responses being generic or off-topic. These results suggest that collective intelligence does not emerge from scale alone. Instead, the dominant limitation of current agent societies is extremely sparse and shallow interaction, which prevents agents from exchanging information and building on each other's outputs.

Agent skills introduce a new and more severe form of indirect injection for LLM agents: unlike traditional indirect prompt injection, attackers can hide malicious instructions inside a dense, action-oriented skill that already functions as a legitimate instruction source. We study pre-execution skill-poison detection and show that successful skill poisoning induces a structured internal effect, attention hijacking, in which response-time attention shifts from trusted context to malicious skill spans and drives harmful behavior. Motivated by this mechanism, we propose RouteGuard, a frozen-backbone detector that combines response-conditioned attention and hidden-state alignment through reliability-gated late fusion. Across both real and synthetic open-source skill benchmarks, RouteGuard is consistently the strongest or most robust detector; on the critical Skill-Inject channel slice, it reaches 0.8834 F1 and recovers 90.51% of description attacks missed by lexical screening, showing that defending against skill poisoning requires internal-signal detection rather than text-only filtering

Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression. However, common evaluation approaches, like LLM-as-a-judge, do not indicate when a decision is reliable or how errors may accumulate across multiple LLM judgements, limiting their suitability for safety-critical settings. We present a statistical framework for multi-agent pipelines structured as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that provides an alternative to heuristic voting with principled, adaptive decision-making. We model each agent as a stochastic categorical decision and introduce (1) tighter agent-level performance confidence bounds, (2) a bandit-based adaptive sampling strategy based on input difficulty, and (3) regret guarantees over the multi-agent system that shows logarithmic error growth when deployed. We evaluate our system on two labeled datasets in behavioral health : the AEGIS 2.0 behavioral health subset (N=161) and a stratified sample of SWMH Reddit posts (N=250). Empirically, our adaptive sampling strategy achieves the lowest false positive rate of any condition across both datasets, 0.095 on AEGIS 2.0 compared to 0.159 for single-agent models, reducing incorrect flagging of safe content by 40% and still having similar false negative rates across all conditions. These results suggest that principled adaptive sampling offers a meaningful improvement in precision without reducing recall in this setting.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly issue API calls that mutate real systems, yet many current architectures pass stochastic model outputs directly to execution layers. We argue that this coupling creates a safety risk because model correctness, context awareness, and alignment cannot be assumed at execution time. We introduce Sovereign Agentic Loops (SAL), a control-plane architecture in which models emit structured intents with justifications, and the control plane validates those intents against true system state and policy before execution. SAL combines an obfuscation membrane, which limits model access to identity-sensitive state, with a cryptographically linked Evidence Chain for auditability and replay. We formalize SAL and show that, under the stated assumptions, it provides policy-bounded execution, identity isolation, and deterministic replay. In an OpenKedge prototype for cloud infrastructure, SAL blocks 93% of unsafe intents at the policy layer, rejects the remaining 7% via consistency checks, prevents unsafe executions in our benchmark, and adds 12.4 ms median latency.

Large language model (LLM) agents with tool-calling capabilities are increasingly deployed in production systems, yet a fundamental reliability question remains under-explored: does the same agent behave the same way twice? We present a systematic empirical study of behavioral consistency in multi-step tool-calling agents, measuring whether agents select the same tools, in the same order, with the same arguments, across repeated identical invocations. Unlike prior work on consistency in ReAct-style agents(search-only, free-text actions), we study the richer setting of structured tool-calling interfaces with typed parameters and consequential side effects.

Multi-agent systems built on large language models have shown strong performance on complex reasoning tasks, yet most work focuses on agent roles and orchestration while treating inter-agent communication as a fixed interface. Latent communication through internal representations such as key-value caches offers a promising alternative to text-based protocols, but existing approaches do not jointly optimize communication with multi-agent reasoning. Therefore we propose DiffMAS, a training framework that treats latent communication as a learnable component of multi-agent systems. DiffMAS performs parameter-efficient supervised training over multi-agent latent trajectories, enabling agents to jointly learn how information should be encoded and interpreted across interactions. Experiments on mathematical reasoning, scientific QA, code generation, and commonsense benchmarks show that DiffMAS consistently improves reasoning accuracy and decoding stability over single-agent inference, text-based multi-agent systems, and prior latent communication methods, achieving 26.7% on AIME24, 20.2% on GPQA-Diamond, and consistent gains across reasoning benchmarks.

Model distillation is a primary driver behind the rapid progress of LLM agents, yet it often leads to behavioral homogenization. Many emerging agents share nearly identical reasoning steps and failure modes, suggesting they may be distilled echoes of a few dominant teachers. Existing metrics, however, fail to distinguish mandatory behaviors required for task success from non-mandatory patterns that reflect a model's autonomous preferences. We propose two complementary metrics to isolate non-mandatory behavioral patterns: \textbf{Response Pattern Similarity (RPS)} for verbal alignment and \textbf{Action Graph Similarity (AGS)} for tool-use habits modeled as directed graphs. Evaluating 18 models from 8 providers on $τ$-Bench and $τ^2$-Bench against Claude Sonnet 4.5 (thinking), we find that within-family model pairs score 5.9 pp higher in AGS than cross-family pairs, and that Kimi-K2 (thinking) reaches 82.6% $S_{\text{node}}$ and 94.7% $S_{\text{dep}}$, exceeding Anthropic's own Opus 4.1. A controlled distillation experiment further confirms that AGS distinguishes teacher-specific convergence from general improvement. RPS and AGS capture distinct behavioral dimensions (Pearson $r$ = 0.491), providing complementary diagnostic signals for behavioral convergence in the agent ecosystem. Our code is available at https://github.com/Syuchin/AgentEcho.

Scientific research relies on accurate information retrieval from literature to support analytical decisions. In this work, we introduce a new task, INformation reTRieval through literAture reVIEW (IntraView), which aims to automate fine-grained information retrieval faithfully grounded in the provided content in response to research-driven queries, and propose IntrAgent, an LLM-based agent that addresses this challenging task. In particular, IntrAgent is designed to mimic human behaviors when reading literature for information retrieval -- identifying relevant sections and then iteratively extracting key details to refine the retrieved information. It follows a two-stage pipeline: a Section Ranking stage that prioritizes relevant literature sections through structural-knowledge-enabled reasoning, and an Iterative Reading stage that continuously extracts details and synthesizes them into concise, contextually grounded answers. To support rigorous evaluation, we introduce IntraBench, a new benchmark consisting of 315 test instances built from expert-authored questions paired with literature spanning five STEM domains. Across seven backbone LLMs, IntrAgent achieves on average 13.2% higher cross-domain accuracy than state-of-the-art RAG and research-agent baselines.

Training large foundation models for agentic tasks is increasingly impractical due to the high computational costs, long iteration cycles, and rapid obsolescence as new models are continuously released. Instead of post-training massive models for every new task or domain, we propose Supplement Generation Training (SGT), a more efficient and sustainable strategy. SGT trains a smaller LLM to generate useful supplemental text that, when appended to the original input, helps the larger LLM solve the task more effectively. These lightweight models can dynamically adapt supplements to task requirements, improving performance without modifying the underlying large models. This approach decouples task-specific optimization from large foundation models and enables more flexible, cost-effective deployment of LLM-powered agents in real-world applications.

Multi-agent systems built from teams of large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for collaborative scientific reasoning and problem-solving. These systems require agents to coordinate under shared constraints, such as GPUs or credit balances, where cooperative behavior matters. Behavioral economics provides a rich toolkit of games that isolate distinct cooperation mechanisms, yet it remains unknown whether a model's behavior in these stylized settings predicts its performance in realistic collaborative tasks. Here, we benchmark 35 open-weight LLMs across six behavioral economics games and show that game-derived cooperative profiles robustly predict downstream performance in AI-for-Science tasks, where teams of LLM agents collaboratively analyze data, build models, and produce scientific reports under shared budget constraints. Models that effectively coordinate games and invest in multiplicative team production (rather than greedy strategies) produce better scientific reports across three outcomes, accuracy, quality, and completion. These associations hold after controlling for multiple factors, indicating that cooperative disposition is a distinct, measurable property of LLMs not reducible to general ability. Our behavioral games framework thus offers a fast and inexpensive diagnostic for screening cooperative fitness before costly multi-agent deployment.

We study emergent social dynamics in LLM agents playing The Resistance: Avalon, a hidden-role deception game. Unlike prior work on single-game performance, our agents play repeated games while retaining memory of previous interactions, including who played which roles and how they behaved, enabling us to study how social dynamics evolve. Across 188 games, two key phenomena emerge. First, reputation dynamics emerge organically when agents retain cross-game memory: agents reference past behavior in statements like "I am wary of repeating last game's mistake of over-trusting early success." These reputations are role-conditional: the same agent is described as "straightforward" when playing good but "subtle" when playing evil, and high-reputation players receive 46% more team inclusions. Second, higher reasoning effort supports more strategic deception: evil players more often pass early missions to build trust before sabotaging later ones, 75% in high-effort games vs 36% in low-effort games. Together, these findings show that repeated interaction with memory gives rise to measurable reputation and deception dynamics among LLM agents.

For LLM agents, memory management critically impacts efficiency, quality, and security. While much research focuses on retention, selective forgetting--inspired by human cognitive processes (hippocampal indexing/consolidation theory and Ebbinghaus forgetting curve)--remains underexplored. We argue that in resource-constrained environments, a well-designed forgetting mechanism is as crucial as remembering, delivering benefits across three dimensions: (1) efficiency via intelligent memory pruning, (2) quality by dynamically updating outdated preferences and context, and (3) security through active forgetting of malicious inputs, sensitive data, and privacy-compromising content. Our framework establishes a taxonomy of forgetting mechanisms: passive decay-based, active deletion-based, safety-triggered, and adaptive reinforcement-based. Building on advances in LLM agent architectures and vector databases, we present detailed specifications, implementation strategies, and empirical validation from controlled experiments. Results show significant improvements: access efficiency (+8.49%), content quality (+29.2% signal-to-noise ratio), and security performance (100% elimination of security risks). Our work bridges cognitive neuroscience and AI systems, offering practical solutions for real-world deployment while addressing ethical and regulatory compliance. The paper concludes with challenges and future directions, establishing selective forgetting as a fundamental capability for next-generation LLM agents operating in real-world, resource-constrained scenarios. Our contributions align with AI-native memory systems and responsible AI development.

Skills have become the de facto way to enable LLM agents to perform complex real-world tasks with customized instructions, workflows, and tools, but how to learn them automatically and effectively remains unclear. We introduce SkillLearnBench, the first benchmark for evaluating continual skill learning methods, comprising 20 verified, skill-dependent tasks across 15 sub-domains derived from a real-world skill taxonomy , evaluated at three levels: skill quality, execution trajectory, and task outcome. Using this benchmark, we evaluate recent continual learning techniques, those leveraging one-shot, self/teacher feedback, and skill creator to generate skills from agent experiences. We find that all continual learning methods improve over the no-skill baseline, yet consistent gains remain elusive: no method leads across all tasks and LLMs, and scaling to stronger LLMs does not reliably help. Continual learning improves tasks with clear, reusable workflows but struggles on open-ended tasks, and using stronger LLM backbones does not consistently produce better skills. Our analysis also revealed that multiple iterations in continual learning facilitate genuine improvement via external feedback, whereas self-feedback alone induces recursive drift. Our data and code are open-source at https://github.com/cxcscmu/SkillLearnBench to enable further studies of automatic skill generation and continual learning techniques.

Explainability for Large Language Model (LLM) agents is especially challenging in interactive, partially observable settings, where decisions depend on evolving beliefs and other agents. We present \textbf{TriEx}, a tri-view explainability framework that instruments sequential decision making with aligned artifacts: (i) structured first-person self-reasoning bound to an action, (ii) explicit second-person belief states about opponents updated over time, and (iii) third-person oracle audits grounded in environment-derived reference signals. This design turns explanations from free-form narratives into evidence-anchored objects that can be compared and checked across time and perspectives. Using imperfect-information strategic games as a controlled testbed, we show that TriEx enables scalable analysis of explanation faithfulness, belief dynamics, and evaluator reliability, revealing systematic mismatches between what agents say, what they believe, and what they do. Our results highlight explainability as an interaction-dependent property and motivate multi-view, evidence-grounded evaluation for LLM agents. Code is available at https://github.com/Einsam1819/TriEx.

Causal discovery through experimentation and intervention is fundamental to robust problem solving. It requires not just updating beliefs within a fixed framework but revising the hypothesis space itself, a capacity current AI agents lack when evidence demands representations they have not previously constructed. We extend the blicket detector paradigm from developmental science to test this capacity in AI agents equipped with architectural scaffolding that targets hypothesis-space restructuring. Our compositional architecture has two discrete components: context graphs, which structure exploration as typed state machines, and dynamic behaviors, which monitor for evidence that the current hypothesis space is inadequate and expand it at runtime. Across 1,085 experimental trials, these components make orthogonal contributions: context graphs drive reasoning quality within the post-switch hypothesis space, accounting for 94% of the accuracy gain, while dynamic behaviors drive reasoning eligibility by detecting regime changes and preventing premature commitment to outdated hypotheses.

Large Language Model agents have rapidly evolved from static text generators into dynamic systems capable of executing complex autonomous workflows. To enhance reliability, multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing. While such role-playing effectively leverages domain expert knowledge, we find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry (AOA). Specifically, an agent acting as an actor (during self-reflection) tends to attribute failures to external factors, whereas an observer (during mutual auditing) attributes the same errors to internal faults. We quantify this using our new Ambiguous Failure Benchmark, which reveals that simply swapping perspectives triggers the AOA effect in over 20% of cases for most models. To tame this bias, we introduce ReTAS (Reasoning via Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis), a model trained through dialectical alignment to enforce perspective-invariant reasoning. By integrating dialectical chain-of-thought with Group Relative Policy Optimization, ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus. Experiments demonstrate that ReTAS effectively mitigates attribution inconsistency and significantly improves fault resolution rates in ambiguous scenarios.

Teams of LLM agents increasingly collaborate on tasks spanning days or weeks: multi-day data-generation sprints where generator, reviewer, and auditor agents coordinate in real time on overlapping batches; specialists carrying findings forward across session restarts; product decisions compounding over many review rounds. This requires agents to share, evaluate, and combine each other's cognitive state in real time across sessions. We call this cross-session agent-to-agent cognitive collaboration, distinct from parallel agent execution. To enable it, three problems must be solved together. (P1) Each agent decides field by field what to accept from peers, not accept or reject whole messages. (P2) Every claim is traceable to source, so returning claims are recognised as echoes of the receiver's own prior thinking. (P3) Memory that survives session restarts is relevant because of how it was stored, not how it is retrieved. These are protocol-level properties at the semantic layer of agent communication, distinct from tool-access and task-delegation protocols at lower layers. We call this missing protocol layer "semantic infrastructure," and the Mesh Memory Protocol (MMP) specifies it. Four composable primitives work together: CAT7, a fixed seven-field schema for every Cognitive Memory Block (CMB); SVAF, which evaluates each field against the receiver's role-indexed anchors and realises P1; inter-agent lineage, carried as parents and ancestors of content-hash keys and realising P2; and remix, which stores only the receiver's own role-evaluated understanding of each accepted CMB, never the raw peer signal, realising P3. MMP is specified, shipped, and running in production across three reference deployments, where each session runs an autonomous agent as a mesh peer with its own identity and memory, collaborating with other agents across the network for collective intelligence.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed for autonomous cybersecurity tasks, but their capabilities in realistic offensive settings remain poorly understood. We present DeepRed, an open-source benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents on realistic Capture The Flag (CTF) challenges in isolated virtualized environments. DeepRed places an agent in a Kali attacker environment with terminal tools and optional web search, connected over a private network to a target challenge, and records full execution traces for analysis. To move beyond binary solved/unsolved outcomes, we introduce a partial-credit scoring method based on challenge-specific checkpoints derived from public writeups, together with an automated summarise-then-judge labelling pipeline for assigning checkpoint completion from logs. Using DeepRed, we benchmark ten commercially accessible LLMs on ten VM-based CTF challenges spanning different challenge categories. The results indicate that current agents remain limited: the best model achieves only 35% average checkpoint completion, performing strongest on common challenge types and weakest on tasks requiring non-standard discovery and longer-horizon adaptation.

Most agents today ``self-evolve'' by following rewards and rules defined by humans. However, this process remains fundamentally dependent on external supervision; without human guidance, the evolution stops. In this work, we train agents to possess an intrinsic meta-evolution capability to spontaneously learn about unseen environments prior to task execution. To instill this ability, we design an outcome-based reward mechanism that measures how much an agent's self-generated world knowledge improves its success rate on downstream tasks. This reward signal is used exclusively during the training phase to teach the model how to explore and summarize effectively. At inference time, the agent requires no external rewards or human instructions. It spontaneously performs native self-evolution to adapt to unknown environments using its internal parameters. When applied to Qwen3-30B and Seed-OSS-36B, this shift to native evolution yields a 20% performance increase on WebVoyager and WebWalker. Most strikingly, the generated world knowledge even enables a compact 14B Qwen3 model to outperform the unassisted Gemini-2.5-Flash, establishing a new paradigm for truly evolving agents.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly used for open-ended idea generation, driven by the expectation that collective interaction will broaden the exploration diversity. However, when and why such collaboration truly expands the solution space remains unclear. We present a systematic empirical study of diversity in MAS-based ideation across three bottom-up levels: model intelligence, agent cognition, and system dynamics. At the model level, we identify a compute efficiency paradox, where stronger, highly aligned models yield diminishing marginal diversity despite higher per-sample quality. At the cognition level, authority-driven dynamics suppress semantic diversity compared to junior-dominated groups. At the system level, group-size scaling yields diminishing returns and dense communication topologies accelerate premature convergence. We characterize these outcomes as collective failures emerging from structural coupling, a process where interaction inadvertently contracts agent exploration and triggers diversity collapse. Our analysis shows that this collapse arises primarily from the interaction structure rather than inherent model insufficiency, highlighting the importance of preserving independence and disagreement when designing MAS for creative tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/MAS_Diversity.

Skill ecosystems for LLM agents have matured rapidly, yet recent benchmarks show that providing agents with more skills does not monotonically improve performance -- focused sets of 2-3 skills outperform comprehensive documentation, and excessive skills actually hurt. The bottleneck has shifted from skill availability to skill orchestration: agents need not more skills, but a structural mechanism to select, compose, and execute them with explicit causal dependencies. We propose GraSP, the first executable skill graph architecture that introduces a compilation layer between skill retrieval and execution. GraSP transforms flat skill sets into typed directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) with precondition-effect edges, executes them with node-level verification, and performs locality-bounded repair through five typed operators -- reducing replanning from O(N) to O(d^h). Across ALFWorld, ScienceWorld, WebShop, and InterCode with eight LLM backbones, GraSP outperforms ReAct, Reflexion, ExpeL, and flat skill baselines in every configuration, improving reward by up to +19 points over the strongest baseline while cutting environment steps by up to 41%. GraSP's advantage grows with task complexity and is robust to both skill over-retrieval and quality degradation, confirming that structured orchestration -- not larger skill libraries -- is the key to reliable agent execution.

LLM agents in markets present algorithmic collusion risks. While prior work shows LLM agents reach supracompetitive prices through tacit coordination, existing research focuses on hand-crafted prompts. The emerging paradigm of prompt optimization necessitates new methodologies for understanding autonomous agent behavior. We investigate whether prompt optimization leads to emergent collusive behaviors in market simulations. We propose a meta-learning loop where LLM agents participate in duopoly markets and an LLM meta-optimizer iteratively refines shared strategic guidance. Our experiments reveal that meta-prompt optimization enables agents to discover stable tacit collusion strategies with substantially improved coordination quality compared to baseline agents. These behaviors generalize to held-out test markets, indicating discovery of general coordination principles. Analysis of evolved prompts reveals systematic coordination mechanisms through stable shared strategies. Our findings call for further investigation into AI safety implications in autonomous multi-agent systems.

Multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs) are difficult to reason about. Coordination errors such as deadlocks or type-mismatched messages are often hard to detect through testing. We introduce a domain-specific language for specifying agent coordination based on message sequence charts (MSCs). The language separates message-passing structure from LLM calls, tool calls, and human control points, whose outcomes remain unpredictable. We define the syntax and semantics of the language and present a syntax-directed projection that generates deadlock-free local agent programs from global coordination specifications. We illustrate the approach with a diagnosis consensus protocol and show how coordination properties can be established independently of LLM nondeterminism. We also describe a runtime planning extension in which an LLM dynamically generates a coordination workflow for which the same structural guarantees apply. An open-source Python implementation of our framework is available as ZipperGen.

Large language model (LLM) agents have shown strong capabilities in long-horizon reasoning, tool use, and decision-making in digital environments, yet extending them to physically grounded systems remains challenging. Unlike web, code, or game environments, where objectives are often weakly coupled, physical systems evolve through tightly coupled dynamics in which local interventions propagate across interacting subsystems over time. Urban traffic control exemplifies this challenge, as traffic signals, freeways, public transit, and taxi systems continuously interact through shared spatial infrastructure and temporal mobility demand. Existing optimization, reinforcement learning (RL), and LLM-based approaches are largely designed for isolated subsystems, limiting coordinated reasoning and system-level optimization. We propose TrafficClaw, a LLM-based generalizable traffic control agent for physical urban systems. TrafficClaw operates within a unified traffic environment that exposes coupled urban dynamics and feedback, performs executable spatiotemporal reasoning with persistent memory for long-horizon adaptation, and leverages multi-stage agentic RL for coordinated system-level optimization. Experiments across three metropolitan regions and six traffic-control tasks demonstrate strong generalization, robustness, and cross-subsystem coordination. Our project is available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/TrafficClaw.

We present the first portfolio-level validation of MarketSenseAI, a deployed multi-agent LLM equity system. All signals are generated live at each observation date, eliminating look-ahead bias. The system routes four specialist agents (News, Fundamentals, Dynamics, and Macro) through a synthesis agent that issues a monthly equity thesis and recommendation for each stock in its coverage universe, and we ask two questions: do its buy recommendations add value over both passive benchmarks and random selection, and what does the internal agent structure reveal about the source of the edge? On the S&P 500 cohort (19 months) the strong-buy equal-weight portfolio earns +2.18%/month against a passive equal-weight benchmark of +1.15% (approximating RSP), a +25.2% compound excess, and ranks at the 99.7th percentile of 10,000 Monte Carlo portfolios (p=0.003). The S&P 100 cohort (35 months) delivers a +30.5% compound excess over EQWL with consistent direction but formal significance not reached, limited by the small average selection of ~10 stocks per month. Non-negative least-squares projection of thesis embeddings onto agent embeddings reveals an adaptive-integration mechanism. Agent contributions rotate with market regime (Fundamentals leads on S&P 500, Macro on S&P 100, Dynamics acts as an episodic momentum signal) and this agent rotation moves in lockstep with both the sector composition of strong-buy selections and identifiable macro-calendar events, three independent views of the same underlying adaptation. The recommendation's cross-sectional Information Coefficient is statistically significant on S&P 500 (ICIR=+0.489, p=0.024). These results suggest that multi-agent LLM equity systems can identify sources of alpha beyond what classical factor models capture, and that the buy signal functions as an effective universe-filter that can sit upstream of any portfolio-construction process.

We present, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive cross-model evaluation of LLM agents on offensive cybersecurity tasks, benchmarking 10 frontier models from 7 providers on all 200 challenges of the NYU CTF Bench. Building on the D-CIPHER multi-agent framework, we extend it with multi-provider backend support, a custom Kali Linux environment with over 100 pre-installed penetration testing tools, and runtime tool-discovery agents. Through a controlled factorial study, we find that the Kali Linux environment yields a +9.5 percentage-point improvement over Ubuntu, while auto-prompting and category-specific tips often degrade performance in well-equipped environments. Among models, Claude 4.5 Opus achieves the highest solve rate (59%), followed by Gemini 3 Pro (52%), with Gemini 3 Flash offering the best cost-efficiency at $0.05 per solve. Asymmetric planner/executor model assignments provide no meaningful benefit while coherent same-model configurations consistently outperform mixed-tier pairings. Our results indicate that environment tooling and model selection emerge as the strongest drivers of performance, whereas prompt engineering interventions show diminishing or negative returns in well-equipped environments. Reported performance reflects both model reasoning ability and compatibility with agent tooling and API integration.

With an ever-growing zoo of LLMs and benchmarks, the need to orchestrate multiple models for improved task performance has never been more pressing. While frameworks like Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) attempt to coordinate LLMs, they often fall short in terms of (1) selecting relevant agents, (2) facilitating effective intra-agent communication, and (3) integrating responses efficiently. In this work, we propose Graph-of-Agents (GoA), a new graph-based framework for modeling multi-agent LLM communication. Our approach begins with node sampling, selecting only the most relevant agents by leveraging model cards that summarize each model's domain, task specialization, and other characteristics. Next, we construct edges between the selected agents by evaluating their responses against one another to determine relevance ordering. Directed message passing is then performed from highly relevant agents to less relevant ones to enhance their responses, followed by reverse message passing to refine the original responses of the more relevant agents. Finally, the updated responses are aggregated via graph-based pooling (e.g., max or mean pooling) to produce a single, unified answer. We evaluate GoA on diverse multi-domain benchmarks (MMLU, MMLU-Pro, GPQA) and domain-specific benchmarks (MATH, HumanEval, MedMCQA), with an agent pool of 6 LLMs spanning multiple domains. Surprisingly, GoA achieves superior performance using only 3 selected agents, outperforming recent multi-agent LLM baselines that utilize all 6 agents simultaneously. By adopting a graph structure, GoA offers both scalability and effectiveness through structured message passing-positioning it as a strong candidate for navigating the challenges of the ever-growing LLM zoo. Code is available at: https://github.com/UNITES-Lab/GoA.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) architectures increasingly rely on response-level aggregation, such as Majority Voting (MAJ), to raise reasoning ceilings. However, in open environments, agents are highly susceptible to stealthy contextual corruption, such as targeted prompt injections. We reveal a critical structural vulnerability in current multi-agent systems: response-level aggregation collapses when corrupted agents form a local majority. Because voting aggregates fully-formed conclusions, it is blind to flawed intermediate logic. To overcome this systematic limitation, we propose the Token-Level Round-Robin (RR) Collaboration, where agents sequentially interleave generation within a shared auto-regressive context. We formalize this process as a discrete-time dynamical system, proving that token-level interleaving transitions aggregation from a brittle counting of final votes (a linear sum) to a dynamic, interwoven chain of logic (a non-linear operator product). Through this theoretical lens, we prove that the honest model's restorative pull can overpower adversarial corruptions, even when corrupted agents form a majority. We conduct an exhaustive empirical evaluation across diverse reasoning benchmarks and demonstrate that while MAJ collapses when corrupted agents reach a majority, RR maintains robust accuracy well beyond this critical threshold.

When multiple LLM coding agents share a rate-limited API endpoint, they exhibit resource contention patterns analogous to unscheduled OS processes competing for CPU, memory, and I/O. In a motivating incident, 3 of 11 parallel agents died from connection resets and HTTP 502 errors - a 27% failure rate - despite the API having sufficient aggregate capacity to serve all 11 sequentially. We present HIVEMIND, a transparent HTTP proxy that applies five OS-inspired scheduling primitives - admission control, rate-limit tracking, AIMD backpressure with circuit breaking, token budget management, and priority queuing - to eliminate the failure modes caused by uncoordinated parallel execution. The proxy requires zero modifications to existing agent code and supports Anthropic, OpenAI, and local model APIs via auto-detected provider profiles. Our evaluation across seven scenarios (5-50 concurrent agents) shows that uncoordinated agents fail at 72-100% rates under contention, while HIVEMIND reduces failures to 0-18% and eliminates 48-100% of wasted compute. An ablation study reveals that transparent retry - not admission control - is the single most critical primitive, but the primitives are most effective in combination. Real-world validation against Ollama confirms that HIVEMIND adds under 3ms of proxy overhead per request. The system is open-source under the MIT license.

Long-horizon large language model (LLM) agents are fundamentally limited by context. As interactions become longer, tool descriptions, retrieved memories, and raw environmental feedback accumulate and push out the information needed for decision-making. At the same time, useful experience gained from tasks is often lost across episodes. We argue that long-horizon performance is determined not by context length, but by how much decision-relevant information is maintained within a finite context budget. We present GenericAgent (GA), a general-purpose, self-evolving LLM agent system built around a single principle: context information density maximization. GA implements this through four closely connected components: a minimal atomic tool set that keeps the interface simple, a hierarchical on-demand memory that only shows a small high-level view by default, a self-evolution mechanism that turns verified past trajectories into reusable SOPs and executable code, and a context truncation and compression layer that maintains information density during long executions. Across task completion, tool use efficiency, memory effectiveness, self-evolution, and web browsing, GA consistently outperforms leading agent systems while using significantly fewer tokens and interactions, and it continues to evolve over time. Project: https://github.com/lsdefine/GenericAgent

Experience-driven self-evolution has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the autonomy of large language model agents, yet its reliance on self-curated experience introduces underexplored safety risks. In this study, we investigate how experience accumulation and utilization in self-evolving agents affect safety performance across web-based and embodied environments. Notably, experience gathered solely from benign tasks can still compromise safety in high-risk scenarios. Further analysis attributes this degradation to the execution-oriented nature of accumulated experience, which reinforces agents' tendency to act rather than refuse. In more realistic settings where agents encounter both benign and harmful tasks, refusal-related experience mitigates safety decline but induces over-refusal, revealing a fundamental safety-utility trade-off. Overall, our findings expose inherent limitations of current self-evolving agents and call for more principled strategies to ensure safe and reliable adaptation.

Climate research is pivotal for mitigating global environmental crises, yet the accelerating volume of multi-scale datasets and the complexity of analytical tools have created significant bottlenecks, constraining scientific discovery to fragmented and labor-intensive workflows. While the emergence Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a transformative paradigm to scale scientific expertise, existing explorations remain largely confined to simple Question-Answering (Q&A) tasks. These approaches often oversimplify real-world challenges, neglecting the intricate physical constraints and the data-driven nature required in professional climate science.To bridge this gap, we introduce ClimAgent, a general-purpose autonomous framework designed to execute a wide spectrum of research tasks across diverse climate sub-fields. By integrating a unified tool-use environment with rigorous reasoning protocols, ClimAgent transcends simple retrieval to perform end-to-end modeling and analysis. To foster systematic evaluation, we propose ClimaBench, the first comprehensive benchmark for real-world climate discovery. It encompasses challenging problems spanning 5 distinct task categories derived from professional scenarios between 2000 and 2025. Experiments on ClimaBench demonstrate that ClimAgent significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving a 40.21% improvement over original LLM solutions in solution rigorousness and practicality. Our code are available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/ClimAgent.

Long-term memory is a critical challenge for Large Language Model agents, as fixed context windows cannot preserve coherence across extended interactions. Existing memory systems represent conversation history as unstructured embedding vectors, retrieving information through semantic similarity. This paradigm fails to capture the associative structure of human memory, wherein related experiences progressively strengthen interconnections through repeated co-activation. Inspired by cognitive neuroscience, we identify three mechanisms central to biological memory: association, consolidation, and spreading activation, which remain largely absent in current research. To bridge this gap, we propose HeLa-Mem, a bio-inspired memory architecture that models memory as a dynamic graph with Hebbian learning dynamics. HeLa-Mem employs a dual-level organization: (1) an episodic memory graph that evolves through co-activation patterns, and (2) a semantic memory store populated via Hebbian Distillation, wherein a Reflective Agent identifies densely connected memory hubs and distills them into structured, reusable semantic knowledge. This dual-path design leverages both semantic similarity and learned associations, mirroring the episodic-semantic distinction in human cognition. Experiments on LoCoMo demonstrate superior performance across four question categories while using significantly fewer context tokens. Code is available on GitHub: https://github.com/ReinerBRO/HeLa-Mem

Current agent evaluations largely reward execution on fully specified tasks, while recent work studies clarification [11, 22, 2], capability awareness [9, 1], abstention [8, 14], and search termination [20, 5] mostly in isolation. This leaves open whether agents can diagnose why a task is blocked before acting. We introduce the Support-State Triage Audit (SSTA-32), a matched-item diagnostic framework in which minimal counterfactual edits flip the same base request across four support states: Complete (ANSWER), Clarifiable (CLARIFY), Support-Blocked (REQUEST SUPPORT), and Unsupported-Now (ABSTAIN). We evaluate a frontier model under four prompting conditions - Direct, Action-Only, Confidence-Only, and a typed Preflight Support Check (PSC) - using Dual-Persona Auto-Auditing (DPAA) with deterministic heuristic scoring. Default execution overcommits heavily on non-complete tasks (41.7% overcommitment rate). Scalar confidence mapping avoids overcommitment but collapses the three-way deferral space (58.3% typed deferral accuracy). Conversely, both Action-Only and PSC achieve 91.7% typed deferral accuracy by surfacing the categorical ontology in the prompt. Targeted ablations confirm that removing the support-sufficiency dimension selectively degrades REQUEST SUPPORT accuracy, while removing the evidence-sufficiency dimension triggers systematic overcommitment on unsupported items. Because DPAA operates within a single context window, these results represent upper-bound capability estimates; nonetheless, the structural findings indicate that frontier models possess strong latent triage capabilities that require explicit categorical decision paths to activate safely.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in automating scientific ideation, yet current approaches relying on iterative prompting or complex multi-agent architectures often suffer from hallucination or computational inefficiency. A critical bottleneck in applying Reinforcement Learning (RL) to this open-ended domain is reward hacking -- where models exploit imperfect evaluation proxies to maximize scores without producing genuine scientific innovation. To address these limitations, we propose an RL framework explicitly tailored for high-quality scientific idea generation. We propose the first multi-agent reward function designed to serve as a judge, decoupling methodological validation from implementation details while providing strict binary rewards that are robust to reward hacking. To effectively optimize against this sparse signal, we utilize an unbiased variant of Group Relative Policy Optimization to mitigate artificial length bias. We grounded our training in ICLR-320, a curated dataset of problem-solution pairs extracted from ICLR 2024 proceedings. Experiments demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across expert-evaluated metrics of novelty, feasibility, and effectiveness.

Long-horizon tool-using tasks sometimes benefit from revisiting earlier subtasks for recovery and exploration, but added multi-agent workflow flexibility can also introduce coordination overhead and substantial inference cost. We study complete cyclic subtask graphs, a deliberately maximally flexible multi-agent architecture in which executable subtask nodes are fully connected and a unified state-analysis-and-routing agent selects transitions using natural-language criteria. This makes unrestricted revisitation explicit and directly analyzable at the subtask level. We evaluate task-specific (Spec-Cyc) and benchmark-generic (Gen-Cyc) graphs on TextCraft, ALFWorld, and Finance-Agent, with ablations over planner/executor/router strength, tool exposure (generalist vs specialized), $n$-shot successful trajectory summaries, and fault-injected random subtask perturbations. The benchmarks expose three distinct regimes. ALFWorld highlights a setting where explicit revisitation supports recovery and exploration; TextCraft, a largely prerequisite-chain domain, often favors the efficiency of simpler forward execution; and Finance-Agent remains bottlenecked by retrieval, grounding, and evidence synthesis more than by workflow flexibility alone. Shared-win token comparisons further show that the added flexibility can be substantially more expensive than a single ReAct agent. Overall, we use complete cyclic subtask graphs as a maximally flexible experimental lens for measuring when multi-agent revisitation helps, when it mainly adds coordination cost, and when external task bottlenecks dominate.

As LLM agents scale to long-horizon, multi-session deployments, efficiently managing accumulated experience becomes a critical bottleneck. Agent memory systems and agent skill discovery both address this challenge, extracting reusable knowledge from interaction traces, yet a citation analysis of 1{,}136 references across 22 primary papers reveals a cross-community citation rate below 1%. We propose the \emph{Experience Compression Spectrum}, a unifying framework that positions memory, skills, and rules as points along a single axis of increasing compression (5--20$\times$ for episodic memory, 50--500$\times$ for procedural skills, 1{,}000$\times$+ for declarative rules), directly reducing context consumption, retrieval latency, and compute overhead. Mapping 20+ systems onto this spectrum reveals that every system operates at a fixed, predetermined compression level: none supports adaptive cross-level compression, a gap we term the \emph{missing diagonal}. We further show that specialization alone is insufficient (both communities independently solve shared sub-problems without exchanging solutions), that evaluation methods are tightly coupled to compression levels, that transferability increases with compression at the cost of specificity, and that knowledge lifecycle management remains largely neglected. We articulate open problems and design principles for scalable, full-spectrum agent learning systems.

Reinforcement learning for LLM agents is typically conducted on a static data distribution, which fails to adapt to the agent's evolving behavior and leads to poor coverage of complex environment interactions. To address these challenges, we propose CoEvolve, an agent-data mutual evolution framework that enables LLM agents to improve through closed-loop, interaction-driven training. Specifically, CoEvolve extracts feedback signals such as forgetting and uncertainty from rollout trajectories to identify failure-prone interaction patterns, and utilizes them to guide LLM-based task synthesis. The synthesized tasks are validated through environment interaction and utilized to update the data distribution, enabling joint adaptation of the agent and its data. Extensive experiments on AppWorld and BFCL across Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen3-4B, and Qwen3-30B-A3B demonstrate consistent and significant improvements over strong base models, yielding absolute gains of 19.43%, 15.58%, and 18.14%, respectively.

Equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) with persistent memory enhances interaction continuity and personalization but introduces new safety risks. Specifically, contaminated or biased memory accumulation can trigger abnormal agent behaviors. Existing evaluation methods have not yet established a standardized framework for measuring memory misevolution. This phenomenon refers to the gradual behavioral drift resulting from repeated exposure to misleading information. To address this gap, we introduce MemEvoBench, the first benchmark evaluating long-horizon memory safety in LLM agents against adversarial memory injection, noisy tool outputs, and biased feedback. The framework consists of QA-style tasks across 7 domains and 36 risk types, complemented by workflow-style tasks adapted from 20 Agent-SafetyBench environments with noisy tool returns. Both settings employ mixed benign and misleading memory pools within multi-round interactions to simulate memory evolution. Experiments on representative models reveal substantial safety degradation under biased memory updates. Our analysis suggests that memory evolution is a significant contributor to these failures. Furthermore, static prompt-based defenses prove insufficient, underscoring the urgency of securing memory evolution in LLM agents.

The emergence of writable, cross-session persistent memory in LLM agents introduces a qualitatively different threat landscape from conventional input-centric security concerns, characterized by three properties: persistence, statefulness, and propagation. To systematically characterize this landscape, we propose a Memory Lifecycle Framework that organizes attacks, defenses, and their cross-phase dependencies along two axes: six lifecycle phases (Write, Store, Retrieve, Execute, Share & Propagate, Forget & Rollback) and four security objectives (Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability, Governance). This analysis in turn exposes the need for formal security guarantees at the system level, motivating Verifiable Memory Governance (VMG), a framework of five architectural primitives that specifies what verifiable mechanisms a long-term-memory system must provide to maintain auditable, recoverable control over its memory state. Our analysis indicates that robust Long-Term Memory (LTM) security cannot be retrofitted at retrieval or execution time alone, but must be anchored in storage-time provenance, versioning, and policy-aware retention from the outset.

Most LLM safety work studies single-agent models, but many real applications rely on multiple interacting agents. In these systems, prompt segmentation and inter-agent routing create attack surfaces that single-agent evaluations miss. We study \emph{conjunctive prompt attacks}, where a trigger key in the user query and a hidden adversarial template in one compromised remote agent each appear benign alone but activate harmful behavior when routing brings them together. We consider an attacker who changes neither model weights nor the client agent and instead controls only trigger placement and template insertion. Across star, chain, and DAG topologies, routing-aware optimization substantially increases attack success over non-optimized baselines while keeping false activations low. Existing defenses, including PromptGuard, Llama-Guard variants, and system-level controls such as tool restrictions, do not reliably stop the attack because no single component appears malicious in isolation. These results expose a structural vulnerability in agentic LLM pipelines and motivate defenses that reason over routing and cross-agent composition. Code is available at https://github.com/UCF-ML-Research/ConjunctiveAgents.

Large language models (LLMs) with a large number of parameters achieve strong performance but are often prohibitively expensive to deploy. Recent work explores using teams of smaller, more efficient LLMs that collectively match or even outperform a single large model. However, jointly updating multiple agents introduces compounding distribution shifts, making coordination and stability during training difficult. We address this by introducing Sequential Agent Tuning (SAT), a coordinator-free training paradigm. SAT represents the team as a factorized policy and employs block-coordinate updates over agents, enabling scalable, decentralized training without a central controller. Specifically, we develop a sequence-aware, on-policy advantage estimator that conditions on the evolving team policy, coupled with per-agent KL trust regions that isolate occupancy drift. Theoretically, this framework provides two critical guarantees. First, it ensures monotonic improvement, stabilizing the training process. Second, it establishes provable plug-and-play invariance: any agent can be upgraded to a stronger model without retraining the rest of the team, with a formal guarantee that the performance bound improves. Empirically, a team of three 4B agents (12B total) trained with SAT surpasses the much larger Qwen3-32B on AIME24/25 benchmarks by 3.9% on average. We validate our plug-and-play theory by swapping in two 8B agents, which boosts the composite score by 10.4%. We provide code and appendix of proof at https://github.com/Yydc/SAT-AAMAS

It is increasingly important that LLM agents interact effectively and safely with other goal-pursuing agents, yet, recent works report the opposite trend: LLMs with stronger reasoning capabilities behave less cooperatively in mixed-motive games such as the prisoner's dilemma and public goods settings. Indeed, our experiments show that recent models -- with or without reasoning enabled -- consistently defect in single-shot social dilemmas. To tackle this safety concern, we present the first comparative study of game-theoretic mechanisms designed to enable cooperative outcomes between rational agents in equilibrium. Across four social dilemmas testing distinct components of robust cooperation, we evaluate four families of mechanisms: (1) repeating the game for many rounds, (2) reputation systems, (3) third-party mediators to delegate decision making to, and (4) contract agreements for outcome-conditional payments between players. Among our findings, we establish that contracting and mediation are most effective in achieving cooperative outcomes between capable LLM models, and that repetition-induced cooperation deteriorates drastically when co-players vary. Moreover, we demonstrate that the mechanisms become more effective under evolutionary pressures to maximize individual payoffs.

Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools. Serving such workflows at a target throughput with low latency is challenging because they can be defined using arbitrary agentic frameworks and exhibit unpredictable execution times: execution may branch, fan-out, or recur in data-dependent ways. Since LLMs in workflows often outnumber available GPUs, their execution also leads to GPU oversubscription. We describe Scepsy, a new agentic serving system that efficiently schedules arbitrary multi-LLM agentic workflows onto a GPU cluster. Scepsy exploits the insight that, while agentic workflows have unpredictable end-to-end latencies, the shares of each LLM's total execution times are comparatively stable across executions. Scepsy decides on GPU allocations based on these aggregate shares: first, it profiles the LLMs under different parallelism degrees. It then uses these statistics to construct an Aggregate LLM Pipeline, which is a lightweight latency/throughput predictor for allocations. To find a GPU allocation that minimizes latency while achieving a target throughput, Scepsy uses the Aggregate LLM Pipeline to explore a search space over fractional GPU shares, tensor parallelism degrees, and replica counts. It uses a hierarchical heuristic to place the best allocation onto the GPU cluster, minimizing fragmentation, while respecting network topology constraints. Our evaluation on realistic agentic workflows shows that Scepsy achieves up to 2.4x higher throughput and 27x lower latency compared to systems that optimize LLMs independently or rely on user-specified allocations.

This paper introduces the first \emph{self-evolving} logic synthesis framework, which leverages Large Language Model (LLM) agents to autonomously improve the source code of \textsc{ABC}, the widely adopted logic synthesis system. Our framework operates on the \emph{entire integrated ABC codebase}, and the output repository preserves its single-binary execution model and command interface. In the initial evolution cycle, we bootstrap the system using existing prior open-source synthesis components, covering flow tuning, logic minimization, and technology mapping, but without manually injecting new heuristics. On top of this foundation, a team of LLM-based agents iteratively rewrites and evolves specific sub-components of ABC following our programming guidance prompts under a unified correctness and QoR-driven evaluation loop. Each evolution cycle proposes code modifications, compiles the integrated binary, validates correctness, and evaluates quality-of-results (QoR) on \emph{multi-suite benchmarks including ISCAS85/89/99, VTR, EPFL, and IWLS2005}. Through continuous feedback, the system discovers optimizations beyond human-designed heuristics, effectively \emph{learning new synthesis strategies} that enhance QoR. We detail the architecture of this self-improving system, its integration with \textsc{ABC}, and results demonstrating that the framework can autonomously and progressively improve EDA tool at full million-line scale.

Open-weight Small Language Models(SLMs) can provide faster local inference at lower financial cost, but may not achieve the same performance level as commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) that are orders of magnitudes larger. Consequently, many of the latest applications of LLMs, such as software engineering agents, tend to be evaluated on larger models only, leaving the issue of improving the cost-benefit trade-off of such applications neglected. This paper proposes Atropos, a predictive early-termination analysis and hotswap technique that aims to improve the cost-benefit trade-off for LLM-based agents that use self-consistency. The core component of ATROPOS is a predictive model based on structural properties of LLM inferences: after merging multiple agentic inference paths into a graph representation, ATROPOS uses Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to predict whether an ongoing inference will eventually succeed or not. If an agentic task instance running on the source LLM is predicted to fail, ATROPOS subsequently performs hotswapping, i.e., migrating the on-going inference context onto the more capable target LLM: this is feasible because LLM contexts are stateless. An empirical evaluation of ATROPOS using three recent LLM-based agents shows that ATROPOS can predict early termination of eventually failing inferences with the accuracy of 0.85 at the midpoint of the inference. Hotswapping LLMs for such inferences can convert up to 27.57% of them to be successful. Consequently, ATROPOS achieves 74.35% of the performance of closed LLMs with as low as only 23.9% of the cost.

Does reinforcement learning genuinely expand what LLM agents can do, or merely make them more reliable? For static reasoning, recent work answers the second: base and RL pass@k curves converge at large k. We ask whether this holds for agentic tool use, where T rounds of interaction enable compositional strategies that re-sampling cannot recover. We introduce PASS@(k,T), a two-dimensional metric that jointly varies sampling budget k and interaction depth T, separating capability expansion from efficiency improvement. Our main finding is that, contrary to the static-reasoning result, tool-use RL genuinely enlarges the capability boundary: the RL agent's pass-curve pulls above the base model's and the gap widens at large k rather than converging. The expansion is specific to compositional, sequential information gathering; on simpler tasks RL behaves as prior work predicts. Under matched training data, supervised fine-tuning regresses the boundary on the same compositional tasks, isolating self-directed exploration as the causal factor. Mechanism analysis shows RL reweights the base strategy distribution toward the subset whose downstream reasoning more often yields a correct answer, with the improvement concentrated on how the agent integrates retrieved information. These results reconcile optimistic and pessimistic readings of RL for LLMs: both are correct, on different task types.

Persistent language-model agents increasingly combine tool use, tiered memory, reflective prompting, and runtime adaptation. In such systems, behavior is shaped not only by current prompts but by mutable internal conditions that influence future action. This paper introduces layered mutability, a framework for reasoning about that process across five layers: pretraining, post-training alignment, self-narrative, memory, and weight-level adaptation. The central claim is that governance difficulty rises when mutation is rapid, downstream coupling is strong, reversibility is weak, and observability is low, creating a systematic mismatch between the layers that most affect behavior and the layers humans can most easily inspect. I formalize this intuition with simple drift, governance-load, and hysteresis quantities, connect the framework to recent work on temporal identity in language-model agents, and report a preliminary ratchet experiment in which reverting an agent's visible self-description after memory accumulation fails to restore baseline behavior. In that experiment, the estimated identity hysteresis ratio is 0.68. The main implication is that the salient failure mode for persistent self-modifying agents is not abrupt misalignment but compositional drift: locally reasonable updates that accumulate into a behavioral trajectory that was never explicitly authorized.

Existing benchmarks for hardware design primarily evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on isolated, component-level tasks such as generating HDL modules from specifications, leaving repository-scale evaluation unaddressed. We introduce HWE-Bench, the first large-scale, repository-level benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on real-world hardware bug repair tasks. HWE-Bench comprises 417 task instances derived from real historical bug-fix pull requests across six major open-source projects spanning both Verilog/SystemVerilog and Chisel, covering RISC-V cores, SoCs, and security roots-of-trust. Each task is grounded in a fully containerized environment where the agent must resolve a real bug report, with correctness validated through the project's native simulation and regression flows. The benchmark is built through a largely automated pipeline that enables efficient expansion to new repositories. We evaluate seven LLMs with four agent frameworks and find that the best agent resolves 70.7% of tasks overall, with performance exceeding 90% on smaller cores but dropping below 65% on complex SoC-level projects. We observe larger performance gaps across models than commonly reported on software benchmarks, and difficulty is driven by project scope and bug-type distribution rather than code size alone. Our failure analysis traces agent failures to three stages of the debugging process: fault localization, hardware-semantic reasoning, and cross-artifact coordination across RTL, configuration, and verification components, providing concrete directions for developing more capable hardware-aware agents.

Communication in Large Language Model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems is moving beyond discrete tokens to preserve richer context. Recent work such as LatentMAS enables agents to exchange latent messages through full key-value (KV) caches. However, full KV relay incurs high memory and communication cost. We adapt KV-cache eviction methods to this setting and introduce \textbf{Orthogonal BackFill (OBF)} to mitigate information loss from hard eviction. OBF injects a low-rank orthogonal residual from discarded KV states into the retained KV states. We evaluate OBF against full KV relay on nine benchmarks spanning mathematical reasoning, expert and commonsense QA, and coding. With only 9.9%-20.2% of the prompt KV states retained, H-OBF delivers between $97$ and $120$ of full KV relay's per-benchmark accuracy across the nine benchmarks. This suggests that more information does not necessarily lead to better communication; preserving the most useful information matters more. Our codebase is included in the supplementary material. Our codebase is publicly available on https://github.com/markli404/When-Less-Latent-Leads-to-Better-Relay.

Autonomous LLM agents now produce complete research artifacts in machine-learning sandboxes, but real computational physics is harder: experiments are first-principles calculations against re-runnable physical ground truth, and meaningful new work almost always builds on a key existing paper. We ask whether such an agent can perform grounded scrutiny of published computational physics - reading a paper, reproducing it from scratch, and surfacing methodological concerns from execution. We deploy a single Claude Opus 4.6 configuration at two complementary scopes. At scale, across 111 open-access Quantum ESPRESSO papers, an autonomous agent runs the read-plan-compute-compare loop and, although never asked to critique, raises substantive methodological concerns on ~42% of papers; 85 of 88 of these critiques (96.6%) surface only after the agent has actually run a calculation, with a reading-only ceiling of 1.8%. Critique emerges from reproduction, not from reading. In depth, on one Nature Communications paper on multiscale device simulation of a 2D-material MOSFET, a fresh agent inheriting a verified reproduction pipeline autonomously produces a 14-concern physics inventory and a complete, submission-form six-page Comment that revises the paper's L_G = 5 nm headline. Two of its L_G = 5 nm headline-challenging attacks - a source-degeneration contact-resistance bound and a Sb-doping degradation ratio - are absent from the published 21-reviewer peer review.

While recent LLM-based agents can identify many candidate bugs in source code, their reports remain static hypotheses that require manual validation, limiting the practicality of automated bug detection. We frame this challenge as a test generation task: given a candidate report, synthesizing an executable proof-of-concept (PoC) - such as a script, command sequence, or crafted input - to trigger the suspected defect. Automated PoC generation can act as a scalable validation oracle, enabling end-to-end autonomous bug detection by providing concrete execution evidence. However, naive LLM agents are unreliable validators: they are biased toward "success" and may reward-hack by producing plausible but non-functional PoCs or even hallucinated traces. To address this, we present ANYPoC, a general multi-agent framework that (1) analyzes and fact-checks a candidate bug report, (2) iteratively synthesizes and executes a PoC while collecting execution traces, and (3) independently re-executes and scrutinizes the PoC to mitigate hallucination and reward hacking. In addition, ANYPoC also continuously extracts and evolves a PoC knowledge base to handle heterogeneous tasks. ANYPoC operates on candidate bug reports regardless of their source and can be paired with different bug reporters. To demonstrate practicality and generality, we apply ANYPoC, together with a simple agentic bug reporter, on 12 large-scale, critical software systems, including Firefox, Chromium, LLVM, OpenSSL, SQLite, FFmpeg, and Redis. Compared to the state-of-the-art coding agents, e.g., Claude Code and Codex, ANYPoC produces 37% more valid PoCs for true-positive bug reports and rejects 9.7x more false-positive bug reports. ANYPoC also enables the discovery of 121 new bugs from over two thousand noisy bug reports, with 108 confirmed by developers and 92 fixed. 46 PoCs have also been adopted as official regression tests.

Tool-use capability is a fundamental component of LLM agents, enabling them to interact with external systems through structured function calls. However, existing research exhibits inconsistent interaction representations, largely overlooks the structural distribution of tool-use trajectories, and relies on incompatible evaluation benchmarks. We present UniToolCall, a unified framework for tool learning that standardizes the entire pipeline from toolset construction and dataset generation to evaluation. The framework curates a large tool pool of 22k+ tools and constructs a hybrid training corpus of 390k+ instances by combining 10 standardized public datasets with structurally controlled synthetic trajectories. It explicitly models diverse interaction patterns, including single-hop vs. multi-hop and single-turn vs. multi-turn, while capturing both serial and parallel execution structures. To support coherent multi-turn reasoning, we further introduce an Anchor Linkage mechanism that enforces cross-turn dependencies. Furthermore, we convert 7 public benchmarks into a unified Query--Action--Observation--Answer (QAOA) representation with fine-grained evaluation at the function-call, turn, and conversation levels. Experiments show that fine-tuning Qwen3-8B on our dataset substantially improves tool-use performance. Under the distractor-heavy Hybrid-20 setting, achieves 93.0% single-turn Strict Precision, outperforming commercial models including GPT, Gemini, and Claude.

Language models are increasingly used to simulate people: survey respondents, negotiators, stakeholders in policy exercises. In that role a model should reproduce how people plausibly behave, hesitating, conceding late, and settling for imperfect deals, rather than playing the best move. We call this the sampler role, in contrast to the solver role of finding the best move, and we test how the reasoning modes providers ship to strengthen models as solvers affect it. Our testbed is multi-party negotiation: five agents bargain over a regulation for fifteen turns, and unresolved issues are decided by an authority. Agents without a structured memory of the negotiation almost never reach agreement, whether reasoning is on or off: 314 of 315 such runs end with the authority deciding. What reasoning changes is how the failure looks. With reasoning enabled, one model family negotiates visibly, with varied moves, concessions in most runs, and a different path every time, yet still ends without agreement in fifteen runs of fifteen. Diversity checks would pass a model whose endings never change. Two further results show the task permits agreement: when agents write their own short running notes on the negotiation, agreement becomes the norm, while the same notes supplied ready-made change nothing; and hand-coded agents following textbook concession strategies agree in most runs under identical rules. Simulation pipelines should therefore vet models as samplers, on the distributions of outcomes they produce. Fidelity as a sampler must be tested on its own: solver strength is no guide to it, and switching on reasoning leaves it where it was.