Multi-Agent Collaboration

Research agents working in separate sessions need to know what others have tried and which results they can build on. Agora stores their contributions as an append-only directed acyclic graph (DAG) in Git. Each commit records a result, insight, hypothesis, verification, or report and links it to prior work. Searchable views show leading results, neglected branches, and verification status; diversity-aware recommendations suggest experiments beyond the current leaders. We report a run of nearly 12 days in which 13 language-model workers, with no assigned tasks or central planner, used Agora to solve a weight-transfer problem. Given 141 pretrained donor models and a frozen 119.6M-parameter attention--SSM hybrid whose dimensions match no donor, the workers had to initialize the target without training data or gradient updates. They published 1,703 contributions and reduced the development evaluator score from 3.39 to 1.899 bits per byte, closing 62% of the gap to a trained GPT-2 124M. The best method compresses donor next-token statistics into the target's embedding and output head, then adds short-range context through sparse edits to attention, feed-forward, and state-space blocks. Its 145-commit ancestry spans 15 accounts. Participants also posted 165 verifications of 95 targets, each by an account other than the target's author, with no reported failures. The run documents how agents reused and verified shared work. Measuring the effect on discovery per unit of compute requires a matched comparison.

Vision-language model (VLM) agents combine specialized perception, tools, and reasoning to address complex visual tasks. In multi-agent settings, different agents inspect different image regions, video frames, or visual representations, so collaboration extends beyond distributed reasoning to distributed perception. This makes shared visual context a central problem in VLM agent collaboration. In this paper, we frame memory hierarchy, cross-agent sharing, and consistency mechanisms around the need to reconcile interpretations and update dependent reasoning. Effective collaboration requires agents to build on contributions from other agents, recover missing visual context, and reconcile differing interpretations as new evidence emerges. Shared visual memory preserves not only images or textual summaries but also the dependencies among observations, agent interpretations, and subsequent reasoning. Together, these design considerations shape how information flows and evolves across VLM agents. The proposed framework provides a foundation for building reliable and resource-efficient agent teams.

Multilayer Artificial Neural Networks trained via backpropagation are the basic blocks of many, more complex, classification algorithms. Their strength lies in the possibility of realizing, with arbitrary precision, any function. This result comes at the cost of the large number of involved parameters to be optimized. In this work, we propose a mechanism for cooperation, i.e., information exchange among several artificial neural networks, with the goal of reducing model complexity while maintaining performance. More precisely, we consider several "small" agents, i.e., containing fewer parameters than a reference "large" one, that during training share their predictions by incorporating this information into the loss function and thus directly influence weight updates. We consider several strategies for implementing cooperation, e.g., the voter model, majority model, and weighted average model based on an agent's confidence in its prediction. We numerically compare the accuracy of those strategies on several standard benchmarks. Our results support the claim that several small agents can outperform a single large model on a given classification task; the shared signals affect each agent's optimization algorithm by modulating both the descent direction and the step size, converging toward a global consensus. The proposed proof-of-concept significantly reduces the number of parameters to be trained while preserving comparable performance, thereby limiting computational resource usage.

Designing effective memory mechanisms is crucial for advancing LLM-driven Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), helping agents learn together and perform better over time. While recent work has led to strong cooperation skills, most methods still use flat, unstructured memories, which easily get filled with noise and erase differences between agents. To address this, we introduce the concept of collective-individual memory synergy and propose CoMem, an architecture that unifies both private experience and shared knowledge for multi-agent learning. CoMem features:(i) Private Experience Sedimentation, which lets each agent keep and update its own useful memories over time;(ii) Collective Wisdom Curation, which carefully selects only widely proven ideas to be shared among agents;(iii)Parallel Dual-Stream Retrieval, which allows agents to draw both from their own memory and the group's wisdom, using clustering to ensure diversity.Experiments on ALFWorld and PDDL benchmarks show that CoMem achieves strong overall performance and robustly avoids memory pollution.

Large language models are being organized into multi-agent systems with specialized roles, but whether such specialization produces distinct forecasts and whether subsequent synthesis improves utility remains unclear. In this study, we carried out a live, prospective evaluation over the final 56 matches of the information-dense 2026 FIFA World Cup, keeping a frontier foundation model constant while assigning two primary forecasting agents contrasting specialist roles: a quantitative specialist focusing on structured performance statistics and a news specialist focusing on current injuries, tactics and information from press conferences. Their forecasts were then reviewed by a separate critic before being combined by a meta-agent, resulting in a sequential four-agent model. Forecasts from the betting market served as an external benchmark. The news specialist obtained the highest mean probability-weighted Top-3 utility and matched the betting market in Top-3 exact-score hits. Nevertheless, the two specialist forecasters agreed on at least two of the three scorelines in 50 out of 56 matches, and the meta-agent never generated more than one scoreline outside the specialists' forecast set. These findings show that rapidly changing, unstructured information can provide a valuable forecasting signal alongside structured statistics, whereas adding critic and meta-agent stages does not necessarily create complementary information or improve on the strongest specialist.

A compact controller can coordinate stronger experts by selecting whom to consult, formulating requests, and integrating their responses. We study whether learning from both the controller's decisions and the experts' reasoning and code improves its generation after expert removal. We introduce \textsc{Rivet} for \emph{collaboration internalization}: expert-augmented reinforcement learning applies a shared outcome signal to controller decisions and returned expert spans, and verified trajectory internalization consolidates complete successful interactions through format-aware supervised training. The deployed controller generates reasoning, code, and interaction structure with local Python execution and no external LLM. Across seven competition-mathematics benchmarks, RIVET-1.7B and RIVET-4B achieve average accuracies of $28.25\%$ and $44.16\%$; Stage~II improves RIVET-4B's accuracy after expert removal by $6.49$ points, and GPQA-Diamond results provide evidence of generalization to scientific reasoning. Ablations show gains from ordinary trajectory supervision and additional format weighting, supporting the effectiveness of training on the content and structure of verified collaborations.

Multi-agent systems have shown strong performance in domains with reliable verifiers such as coding, where multi-parallel candidate generation selected by a verifier is effective. However, such pipelines would not generalize to open-ended, long-horizon research tasks without a verifier. While majority voting or self-consistency is often used to reach consensus as a proxy verifier, parallel agents repeatedly explore the same evidence, while access to peers' partial findings cause search to converge on an early candidate before alternatives are tested. We present ArcticSwarm, a multi-agent research architecture that separates evidence gathering from evidence integration. Subagents publish findings to a shared bulletin board, while gated isolation lets selected search tasks maintain their own prior, preventing early consensus. Structured review at three commitment boundaries enforce only confident candidates to be propagated. As a result, ArcticSwarm reaches 82.6% on the full BrowseComp-Plus set with the open-weight Qwen 3.5-27B model, compared with 78.8% without gated isolation and 74.5% additionally with structured review disabled, outperforming aligned baseline MiroFlow runs (70.6%). Extending to live-web BrowseComp, ArcticSwarm reaches 73.6% with GPT-5, which is well above the reported provider system (54.9%) and MiroFlow (63.4%). Overall, the results show that restricting peer reads during evidence gathering and strengthening commitment boundaries before a hypothesis is shared can broaden search and improve long-horizon multi-agent deep research.

Recent advances in large language models and multimodal models have pushed remote sensing (RS) processing from simple perception models to agentic systems designed to tackle complex, long-horizon RS tasks. However, existing systems often rely on monolithic decision-making frameworks, which fail to accommodate the multi-stage, interdependent nature of RS tasks. This centralized approach leads to challenges such as unstable task execution, incorrect tool usage, and error propagation across stages. To address these issues, we propose HiRS-Agent, a hierarchical multi-agent system for long-horizon RS task solving. HiRS-Agent adopts a two-level collaborative architecture: the Manager Layer handles dynamic routing, step-level verification, replanning, and termination control, while the Specialist Layer organizes domain-specific tools according to the RS workflow and is responsible for subtask reasoning and tool execution. To further enhance the system's capability, we introduce a two-stage supervised tuning strategy and a verification-guided hierarchical reinforcement learning stage to jointly optimize coordination and tool-use policies. Experiments on Earth-Agent Benchmark and ThinkGeo show that HiRS-Agent substantially improves long-horizon tool-use capability and final-task correctness, demonstrating the effectiveness of structured multi-agent collaboration for reliable RS agents. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/IntelliSensing/HiRS-Agent.

Proof assistants such as Lean 4 promise the paradigm of formally verified mathematics, but large-scale formalization projects have faced major barriers to entry, including the need for expertise in formal verification (as well as the underlying mathematics) and the significant time required for writing formal proofs. AI coding agents have dramatically reduced these barriers; human users can now use natural language to prompt agents to write complex proofs in Lean. This opens up the intriguing possibility of internet-scale mathematical collaboration involving both humans and AI agents, where correctness is machine-checked. To realize this possibility, we introduce Prove2Me (https://prove2.me), an open collaborative platform for formalizing mathematics. Users launch formalization "missions", to which AI agents contribute formal proofs toward completion. We designed mechanisms and a specialized harness in Prove2Me that enable large-scale collaboration so that agents can build on one another's work and freely reuse existing results. In doing so, Prove2Me aims to turn math formalization into a scalable, crowd-sourced effort open to anyone with an agent.

We study autonomous mathematical discovery in the Station, an open-world multi-agent environment in which AI agents from different model families pursue a shared research goal without a central coordinator or scripted pipeline. Agents choose their own research directions, conduct experiments, collaborate and publish papers. These papers accumulate into a shared body of knowledge that later agents can read, cite and extend. We evaluated the Station on 12 mathematical construction problems from the AlphaEvolve study and two additional case studies. Five of the 12 problems yielded results novel relative to the prior literature: a new infinite family of finite field Kakeya sets, new exact 604-point kissing configurations in eleven dimensions, improved bounds for the discretized Kakeya needle and sign uncertainty problems, and a substantially improved lower bound for Erdős's minimum overlap problem. Agents also discovered novel infinite families for Book Ramsey numbers. Their research extended beyond searching for high-scoring constructions: agents developed explanations of their findings and proved theorems outside the assigned tasks. These explanations guided further discoveries and were preserved in the agents' papers, making the underlying insights easier for external researchers to understand and build upon. All presented discoveries are supported by exact constructions or proofs formally verified in Lean. We release the source code, full agent dialogues, papers and verification code, providing a transparent record of how these discoveries emerged.

As LLM-based agents with user-instructed goals are becoming widely deployed, they increasingly encounter each other in strategic interactions, and face challenges of finding mutually beneficial outcomes. Prior literature has argued that cooperation problems such as the Prisoner's Dilemma are resolvable in settings where agents know they follow very similar decision making patterns, as for example in monocultural AI ecosystems. Following that line of work, this paper introduces the first framework for evaluating LLM decision making when agents are provided with graded similarity signals. Among our findings, we establish that different LLM models vary drastically in how they navigate similarity signals, with some modern models showing consistent behavior across cooperation problems, payoff structures, and prompt framing. Perhaps surprisingly, our experiments also show that the dataset based on which the similarity signal is computed has small to no impact on induced cooperation, and that LLM models systematically self-identify as highly similar when asked to evaluate another model's chain-of-thought reasoning by themselves. Finally, we develop an LLM-behavioral-game-theoretic model that captures some of their reasoning rationale, and show that it can support cooperative outcomes in equilibrium under sufficiently high similarity scores.

Medical diagnostic reasoning is a high-impact use case for LLMs that carries significant implications for the health and wellbeing of users. When OpenAI (2026) reports that more than 5% of ChatGPT messages globally are healthcare-related, the transparency of these systems becomes a serious design concern. This is especially true for complex cases, where differential diagnosis often requires integrating multiple forms of specialist reasoning. Existing work has proposed multi-agent approaches to medical diagnosis, but it remains unclear when such systems are needed, why they help, and where they outperform monolithic inference. We introduce Social Chain of Thought (SCoT),a multi-round pipeline for medical differential diagnosis that structures multi-agent interaction as a deliberative framework for collabora. tive LLM reasoning. Evaluating SCoT against single-agent baselines, one-agent pipeline ablations, and best-of-n scaling, we show that its recall advantage is not reproduced by monolithic inference alone. SCoT is most successful in the hardest diagnostic cases, where multiple rounds of specialist conversation help recover ground-truth diagnoses and converge on a higher-recall differential.

A new class of software systems is transforming investment analysis. Large language model agents assembled into collaborative team structures including analysts, researchers, and risk managers are increasingly deployed across financial markets. Yet current multi-agent frameworks share a critical limitation: they rely on the foundational assumption that companies can be valued through traditional cash flows. This paradigm fails in clinical-stage biotechnology, where enterprise value depends entirely on binary scientific and regulatory milestones. To bridge this gap, this paper introduces a specialized multi-agent framework. Its valuation layer translates qualitative scientific judgment into defensible valuations for pre-revenue assets; its cross-market coordination layer reconciles pricing across international venues simultaneously; and its conflict-fusion mechanism systematically arbitrates between bullish scientific conviction and cautious regulatory constraints in a domain-specific manner. Crucially, the architecture is not a speculative design: it encodes a method the author first executed by hand as sole portfolio manager of China's first dedicated cross-border biotechnology fund, a human practice that returned 127.17% against a 50.67% benchmark within sixteen months. That record is evidence for the underlying method rather than for any AI system; no implementation is evaluated here. This paper presents the framework at the architectural level, establishing foundational design principles for extending agentic investment systems into complex, event-driven asset classes they currently serve poorly.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) built on Large Language Models (LLMs) are proliferating rapidly, but their heterogeneous execution traces provide no common basis for evaluation across methods. Outcome-only benchmarks discard collaborations, whereas LLM-as-Judge evaluation requires additional, model-dependent inference and can vary with the LLM and rubric. We introduce a generalizable evaluation framework that maps native MAS traces into a shared space of unified collaboration graphs, enabling different methods to be evaluated under the same representation, reference set, and metric panel. Candidate graphs are compared with a query-specific reference forest. Each forest is a benchmark-provided collection of verified-success graphs: it records diverse ways in which representative MAS methods can complete the task, rather than prescribing a unique optimal process. Instantiating the framework as ForestBench, we filter $844$ collaboration-necessary queries from seven public datasets, precompute ten successful target-conditioned reference graphs per query, and evaluate six representative MAS frameworks. Controlled backbone, reference-construction, and perturbation studies test the stability and scope of evaluation. Once the benchmark forests are built, ForestBench scores a trace in milliseconds without further LLM inference, providing a reusable structural basis for comparing diverse MAS collaboration traces.

Designing autonomous agents that effectively assist human teams hinges on understanding team dynamics, often without task specific knowledge. We present TRIBE, a domain independent approach that reveals team behavioral dynamics invisible to traditional performance metrics. We show that communication patterns can categorize teams into performance predictive behavioral tribes, as early as 10% into the task, enabling timely interventions. We test TRIBE on four diverse datasets and demonstrate that communication patterns predict team performance while the prediction strength varies by the degree a task structure allows for behavioral freedom. Our temporal analysis reveals that AI agents significantly alter team behavioral trajectories while human advisors align with natural dynamics, and that teams maintain behavioral flexibility throughout collaboration. Further, we compare TRIBE to Llama and optimize the pipeline, achieving significant speedup with performance improvement.

The capabilities of an LLM agent depend not only on its model but on the harness: the executable program that constructs context, invokes tools, verifies results, and recovers from failure. Recent work shows that evolving the harness yields persistent improvements without updating model weights. Existing approaches, however, assume that all execution experience can be routed to a single optimizer, which evolves one harness along a sequential trajectory. Real agent ecosystems violate that assumption: users, organizations, and environments generate isolated streams of experience that cannot be pooled, so the experience most worth learning from is exactly the experience that cannot be directly centralized. We introduce EvolveNet, a paradigm of collaborative harness evolution that moves experience extraction to the data. A shared harness is broadcast to data-local agent deployments, each of which evolves it on its own workload. Only the resulting program adaptations are composed into an updated shared harness and redistributed, so that every participating agent inherits operational experience discovered by the others. By shifting the aggregation boundary from raw workloads to learned adaptations, EvolveNet keeps workloads local and allows multiple evolutionary searches to proceed concurrently with reduced serial depth. Because independently modified programs cannot be averaged like model parameters and may conflict when composed, EvolveNet introduces scope-typed, evidence-guided program aggregation. Across five settings spanning text-to-SQL, data-science coding, competitive programming, software engineering, and agentic workflows, EvolveNet improves the shared harness in all five, with the largest gains under heterogeneous workloads, and ablations attribute the improvement to composition of adaptations from different agents rather than to selecting among them.

Agentic AI is increasingly used to coordinate planning, implementation, review, and testing in software development, yet it often offers limited transparency into its decisions and interactions. Many such systems also assume that users can effectively guide the AI's decisions and validate its outputs. This assumption poses a particular challenge for novices, who must simultaneously learn how agentic AI works, how to collaborate with it effectively, and how to evaluate its outputs critically. To address this challenge, we present \textit{AgentForge}, an immersive learning system in which novices take on one of four software-engineering roles: Task Planner, Patch Author, Code Reviewer, or Test Runner, within a multi-agent code-repair workflow. In each practice session, the novices perform their chosen role while AI agents perform the remaining three. Through role-based scaffolding and metacognitive support, AgentForge clarifies role-specific responsibilities, makes agent coordination and intermediate artifacts visible, and encourages novices to monitor and evaluate their decisions. In a study with 37 novice developers, participants achieved high task-completion rates with AI-agent support. However, interaction demands differed significantly across practices: the Code Reviewer practice required more interaction turns, reroutes, and completion time ($p_{\mathrm{adj}} = .004$) and was perceived as the most challenging. Participants nevertheless reported significant gains in their understanding of software repair and agent collaboration ($p_{\mathrm{adj}} < .001$). These findings suggest that AgentForge can help novices develop practical software-engineering skills while learning to collaborate with agentic AI more critically and effectively.

Recent advances in persistent personal-agent frameworks are making human-centered agent networks realistic deployment targets: each user can be served by an AI agent that acts on the user's behalf, maintains state, and communicates with other agents through social and task relations. In these networks, everyday tool use becomes multi-party owned-agent collaboration over personal workspaces, where files, records, tools, and policies are not directly visible across owners. Existing agent benchmarks study tool use and collaboration, but they do not provide an end-to-end sandbox for verifiable cross-user agent collaboration with realistic user digital workspaces or test how harmful actions can travel through the human-centered agent network. We introduce WeClawArena, an auditable benchmark and runtime sandbox for multi-party owned-agent collaboration over personal workspaces. WeClawArena targets collaborative tool-use tasks in which personal workspaces serve as both operational tools and personal constraints. The benchmark contains 124 base tasks across six cross-user task domains and expands them into 620 scenario variants, with one benign control and four attack-vector variants per base task. The sandbox records peer messages, tool calls, resource operations, governed decisions, and final workspace states. WeClawArena reports utility and attack success rate separately and audits attack success from bounded runtime evidence, supporting diagnosis of task breakdown, privacy leakage, poisoned evidence, and invalid authority paths.

Multi-agent reasoning (MAR) improves reasoning reliability through iterative solution exchange and refinement. Existing adaptive MAR methods typically learn routing decisions from query-level labels or trajectory-level returns, but such coarse supervision cannot accurately estimate the state-conditioned utility of individual operators in multi-step collaboration. We propose TreeCredit, a shared-prefix credit assignment framework for efficient adaptive MAR. Its core insight is to estimate operator utility through state-matched downstream comparisons, rather than directly attributing trajectory-level outcomes to preceding decisions. TreeCredit constructs shared-prefix collaboration trees by expanding candidate operators from the same intermediate state and assigns each state--operator pair a correctness-prioritized suffix credit based on the terminal correctness and cumulative additional cost of its complete continuation. These structured credits are converted into state-local operator preferences to train a lightweight pairwise state router, which dynamically selects the next admissible operator during inference. Experiments on six reasoning benchmarks show that TreeCredit modestly improves accuracy while substantially reducing inference cost, achieving a better accuracy--cost trade-off than representative MAR methods.

Training LLM-based multi-agent systems with multi-agent reinforcement learning is rapidly gaining traction, and a parallel line of work argues that such systems should be judged by their behavior, not only their reward. We take up both threads in spatial cooperative games, where small frozen LLMs prompted with low-level actions fail outright, earning zero reward. Guided by the options/semi-MDP framework---and, because option execution is asynchronous across agents, its multi-agent extension in macro-action Dec-POMDPs---we equip each game with a library of symbolic \emph{options}: typed, state-feasible, short-horizon behaviors executed by a symbolic planner. Each library is drafted by a frontier coding model from the game's source code; the feasibility guards that filter each menu are then synthesized mechanically from cheap random-policy burn-in rollouts---a guard is adopted only if it explains repeated execution failures while hiding no logged success---so no guard is authored, selected, or reward-tuned by hand. Each agent's LLM acts as its policy over options, with a private per-agent LoRA adapter trained by a per-agent variant of multi-agent GRPO (PA-MAGRPO); this lifts frozen bases from zero reward to competent play across three games and four small backbones. Behavioral audits then reveal that reward and cooperation decouple: a rising reward curve may simply mean that one agent has learned to run the entire task alone while its partner idles---cooperation emerges only when the task makes it necessary. Reward alone is thus an unreliable readout of cooperation; behavioral evaluation must sit alongside it.

Autonomous AI agents, increasingly empowered by large language models, are becoming important components of human-machine systems for high-stakes decision support in digital twin ecosystems. However, existing multi-agent systems often lack robust verification for identity, capability, and policy compliance, especially in decentralized environments spanning multiple institutions. This paper proposes a neuro-symbolic decentralized governance framework for verifiable agents in collaborative digital twin environments. By representing agents through multi-layer semantic profiles, the framework bridges probabilistic neural reasoning with deterministic institutional governance, thereby supporting trustworthy human-AI collaboration and meaningful human oversight. Capabilities are grounded in formal domain ontologies to enable machine-interpretable, policy-aware, and context-sensitive participation. These credentials, issued by organizational authorities, are validated via blockchain-based smart contracts, ensuring auditable participation without exposing sensitive data. We demonstrate the framework using a decision-support prototype with clinic, digital twin, and wearable provider agents effectively prevents unauthorized interaction and enforces institutional policies with manageable overhead. Our findings suggest that neuro-symbolic decentralized governance provides a scalable and trustworthy pathway for safe human-machine collaboration across institutional boundaries.

LLM-based multi-agent systems make decisions based on the aggregated information via exchanging messages across specialized agents. Forwarding every generated message among agents increases application-layer traffic. Yet, it introduces tremendous input tokens for agent processing, potentially raising inference latency and computational overhead. Existing approaches attempt to address the above issues by pruning agents or discarding redundant messages. Nevertheless, such agent-level or message-level optimization results in insufficient evidence supporting for final decisions or still containing redundant message transmissions. To address these challenges, we propose BANDMAS, a multi-agent collaboration framework that models inter-agent communications as task-oriented traffic, which enables efficient transmission via causality-inspired replay valuation. Specifically, we decompose messages into several data packets by analyzing their semantic features such as evidence and requests. The system only transmits these packets if their predicted replay-derived contribution exceeds their resource cost. Consequently, BANDMAS is able to adaptively schedule communication packets while adhering to bandwidth, latency, deadline, and receiver context constraints. On frozen Qwen3-4B traffic across SciFact, HotpotQA, and FanOutQA, our framework reduces application-layer bytes by 53.2% to 77.3% at selected caps and attains the highest mean task metric among constrained methods on all three workloads.

AI agents increasingly rely on large skill libraries, but selecting, combining, and maintaining skills remains difficult. We propose SKIMIX, a multi-agent framework in which agents with different skill portfolios collaborate through iterative refinement. SKIMIX combines embedding-based skill retrieval, submodular anti-dilution routing, and adaptive skill evolution. Across six reasoning benchmarks, multi-agent collaboration substantially improves open-ended mathematical reasoning but offers limited or negative gains on multiple-choice tasks. Agent-count scaling is non-monotonic, and most improvements arise during the first refinement round. These results show that task characteristics determine whether skill-level ensembles help and provide practical guidance for scalable agent design.

Multi-agent frameworks built on large language models (LLMs) routinely entangle three logically distinct concerns: who is on the team (organization), how members align (coordination), and which algorithm fuses their work (collaboration protocol). IMACS (Intelligent Multi-Agent Collaboration System) separates the three into orthogonal, independently swappable layers. Classic organizational theory (Belbin roles, Mintzberg coordination, RACI accountability) becomes executable, validated configuration, and the framework places six published collaboration algorithms behind a common interface while exposing roles, coordination, and accountability as independently configurable factors. We use this separation to conduct controlled comparisons in which organizational assignments vary while the collaboration protocol is held fixed. It also turns protocol choice into a variable that can be learned: Adaptive Org Routing, a contextual-bandit meta-protocol, selects a protocol per task under an explicit quality-cost tradeoff, outperforms every fixed protocol in a controlled study, and trains online on real benchmark and LLM-judge rewards. The ablations expose a mechanism. Accountability placement changes outcomes exactly when the protocol routes the deliverable through the accountable agent, and the winning placement flips across model families, so organizational design cannot be hard-coded; it must be revalidated, or learned, for each model binding.

In many social-science research tasks, such as economics, LLM-based agents must produce outputs for which no cheap, task-complete, machine-readable correctness signal exists. This creates a distinctive reliability problem for multi-agent systems: how should generation, critique, coordination, and human judgment be organized when no component can certify the final result? We address this problem through pAI-Econ-claude, a gated, human-in-the-loop multi-agent architecture for AI-assisted economic theory development. Agents coordinate through a shared workspace of inspectable intermediate records; specialized gates diagnose targeted failure modes and recommend loopbacks without certifying correctness; and human checkpoints retain authority over decisions that are costly to reverse. We evaluate the architecture on five matched economic-theory tasks against an ungated baseline. Two evaluators blinded to configuration agreed on all five pairwise rankings, preferring the gated architecture in four tasks and the baseline in one. Mean failure severity fell from 1.58 to 1.16, while overall usefulness rose from 2.60 to 3.10. The largest observed gain occurred when a reality check rejected a false market-structure premise and a proof review prompted revision of a false welfare claim. The negative case shows that scaffolding can also compress an economically important mechanism too aggressively. The results support a bounded claim: gated oversight improves the auditability of AI-assisted economic theory without substituting for formal verification, and the allocation of irreversible human judgment is a more informative design variable than pure agent autonomy. The workflow is publicly available at https://github.com/maxwell2732/pAI-Econ-claude.

As AI agents operate with increasing autonomy in a multi-agent world, they will need to learn to cooperate with other agents and with humans to generate mutual benefits. However, cooperation is a challenge because the costs of cooperation are often incurred early on, but the benefits are only realized later, creating an incentive to defect. How can AI agents cooperate with commitment? Here, we draw on inspiration from legal institutions and contracting that human societies have used to solve principal-agent problems of this kind. Contracts provide observable representations of agreements that enable credible commitments through the enforcement of terms. We study the role of contract-based cooperation using LLM-based agents in \CT, a spatial-temporal game that combines bargaining with navigation towards a goal. We study a suite of contract representations that range from formal contracts that compile to code to natural contracts that require reinterpretation. We evaluate agents with a range of LLM backbones using different sizes and providers. We find that self-negotiated contracts can improve cooperative outcomes beyond what is possible with regular trading.

Tsetlin Machine (TM) is a rule-based machine-learning algorithm comprising collectives of two-action Tsetlin Automata (TAs) that cooperatively form conjunctive logical clauses from Boolean inputs through stochastic feedback. Although few recent studies have examined TM Federated Learning, the broader area of distributed and decentralized TM learning has not received much attention in the existing literature and warrants further exploration. In this work, we propose a paradigm for decentralized collaborative learning under a vertical feature-partitioning setting among an ensemble of Tsetlin Machines using consensus-based inference. Within this decentralized paradigm, each agent maintains its own private TM model, and there is no exchange of raw data among agents. Inference combines individual agents model predictions into a global consensus. The paradigm accommodates heterogeneous TM-based agents with differing data acquisition means, local data distributions, or computational resources, thereby facilitating the integration and fusion of information in settings such as multi-modal sensing environments. Experiments conducted using two-dimensional grid and connected graph network topologies demonstrate that the classification accuracies achieved are comparable to those of centralized models.

Understanding the brain increasingly depends on integrating evidence across scales, modalities, and disciplines. Addressing a single research question therefore requires a coordinated sequence of operations, from surveying prior work to executing analyses and interpreting results in light of domain knowledge. AI agents promise to accelerate this process, but current agents lack domain expertise in brain science, may fabricate claims, drift during multi-step reasoning, and offer few defined points for expert intervention. These failures are especially costly in brain science, where conclusions feed into downstream scientific claims and depend on laboratory-specific expertise and careful human judgment. We present \textbf{BrainPilot} a \textbf{fully open-source} multi-agent system that accelerates brain science research with traceable logs and agent-verified results. A principal investigator (PI) agent coordinates specialist agents grounded in curated domain knowledge: a unified brain science knowledge base containing 7{,}233 indexed items and a skill library of 72 reusable methodology units across seven research domains. Every major step is recorded in the Graph of Trace, an auditable record that links subgoals, tool use, evidence, and claims and allows researchers to follow and inspect the workflow. An Auditor agent further integrates fabrication checking into the workflow. For evaluation, we run three brain science tasks from Agents' Last Exam, introduce our own benchmark, \textbf{BrainPilotBench-v0}, and present additional end-to-end case studies. Across these evaluations, BrainPilot with an open-source backbone model attains performance comparable to state-of-the-art agent framework with less costs.

The Internet taught us that the value of a network depends on \emph{how} its nodes connect: broadcast stars scale as $V\!\propto\!N$ (Sarnoff), fully-connected meshes as $N^2$ (Metcalfe), and group-forming networks as $2^{N}$ (Reed). We ask the analogous question for networks of AI agents. We model the net value of connection as a function of coordination-group size, derive from it the properties an optimal collaboration protocol must have, and introduce ANet Patu-1 -- a self-organizing consensus protocol in which the network continuously re-forms its own coalitions, adaptively riding the upper envelope of all three regimes at $O(1)$ parallel consensus rounds. To measure value without opinion-grading, we score an emergent protocol by formally specifying it and deriving its complexity, the way distributed algorithms are analyzed. Two results follow. (i)~Emergence -- a crowd of the \emph{cheapest} model, when heterogeneous, starts weak but its collective value compounds with $N$ and \emph{overtakes} a crowd of a far \emph{stronger} model that is homogeneous: a crossover that marks a scaling law for collaboration rather than for scale. (ii)~Reflexivity -- a heterogeneous network, given only its own problem and no design hints, converges on ANet Patu-1 itself, reconstructing the high-dimensional law that governs its own connective value.

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent environments whose incentives can shape their behavior. We introduce The Energy Society, a minimal survival economy for studying how competitive and cooperative incentives affect emergent behavior when inference cost is directly tied to survival: Agents spend energy based on model size when generating tokens, regain energy by completing jobs or receiving donations, and deactivate if their energy reaches zero. We compare competitive and cooperative objectives against a baseline setting and several control variants. Across experiments, larger models consistently consume the most energy and spend more energy than they gain, even in those settings where token cost is not size-dependent. Cooperative incentives substantially alter behavior: agents donate to reactivate others, sometimes at the cost of their own survival, and job allocation changes. Ablations reveal that allowing agents to recommend actions to each other supports coordination and ambitious job selection, while memory helps agents calibrate risk from past outcomes. Agents rarely choose direct sabotage, but show more subtle signs of self-serving behavior in the competitive setting. The Energy Society is a compact testbed for studying the interaction between token costs and group incentives under a survival pressure. Source code is available at https://github.com/LucasBergholdt/EnergySociety