Multi-Agent LLM Systems

AI systems become more useful when they can adapt to the people using them, but in multi-agent systems, useful context learned by one agent often remains unavailable to others. We present kernel-managed shared memory, a system-level abstraction in which specialized agents write structured, tagged memories while the agent-system kernel, not individual agents, governs retrieval, privacy enforcement, and prompt injection. We implement and evaluate this design on AIOS and compare it against three alternatives across three assistant models (GPT-4o, Llama-3.1:8B, Qwen-2.5:7B) and 1,800 total trials. Against an unmanaged external memory backend (Mem0) using identical underlying storage, kernel-managed retrieval and injection improve personalization scores by 2.4-4.0 points on a 5-point scale (e.g., 1.05 to 4.69 profile usage on GPT-4o), with every comparison significant at p < 10^-18. Against standard retrieval-augmented injection, gains are similarly large and consistent across all three models. Against full, unfiltered context concatenation, a soft ceiling on available context rather than on response quality, kernel-managed injection statistically matches performance on two of three models and shows a small, model-specific deficit on the third, while using substantially shorter prompts: end-to-end latency is 15-61% lower across all three models, with corresponding reductions in per-call token usage and inference cost. These results indicate that centralizing memory management in the agent-system kernel, rather than leaving retrieval and privacy enforcement to individual agents, delivers most of the personalization benefit of unconstrained context at a fraction of its cost.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) achieve strong performance by employing specialized multiple agents, yet their performance depends on the prompt design of each agent. For MAS prompt optimization, textual gradient methods that guide prompt updates using natural-language feedback have emerged as a leading paradigm. In this paper, we identify limitations in two stages of existing textual gradient approaches: gradient extraction and gradient aggregation. In gradient extraction, previous works select a target prompt without verifying whether modifying it resolves the failure, and derive gradients without agent-level supervision over the corresponding agent's intermediate output. In gradient aggregation, individual gradients are randomly grouped and concatenated, often mixing unrelated failure modes and producing prompts that fail to generalize. To address these limitations, we propose AgentGrad, a prompt optimization framework for multi-agent systems based on sequential intervention and semantic textual gradient abstraction. For each failure, sequential intervention modifies the behavior of one agent at a time to identify the target agent whose modification resolves the failure. The modified output of the target agent then serves as agent-level supervision for extracting a fine-grained gradient. Semantic textual gradient abstraction clusters semantically similar gradients to prevent mixing unrelated failure modes, and abstracts each cluster into a generalized gradient that captures the shared corrective pattern. Experimental results show that AgentGrad achieves state-of-the-art performance across five MAS benchmarks while reducing wall-clock optimization time by $2.5\times$ and optimization cost by 21.8% on average compared to the next-best baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) are being deployed at scale in consequential real-world systems, from financial markets to content moderation to hiring. We show that improving individual model capability can degrade rather than improve system-level outcomes. We hypothesize that shared training and architectures can lead more capable LLMs to behave more similarly, creating correlated actions that do not diversify away. We develop a general framework showing how this correlation creates a non-diversifiable risk floor and test its predictions in financial markets using an agent-based simulation with LLM traders of varying general-purpose capability. We find that: (1) frontier LLMs exhibit significantly correlated behavior that increases with capability; (2) when their shared reasoning is accurate, increasing agent participation reduces market-level risk; and (3) when agents share a common misinformation environment, the same correlated behavior becomes a liability. Together, these results identify a capability paradox: improving individual models does not necessarily produce better system-level outcomes. Whether the same dynamics arise in other domains is an open empirical question.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems have experienced rapid growth in recent years. Despite their promise, such systems remain fragile, frequently exhibiting reasoning and coordination errors that can lead to system-level failures. Failure attribution in such systems relies on tracing natural language interactions among agents to identify the decisive error, which refers to the earliest action whose correction can reverse system failure. There are two key challenges: 1) Shallow attribution: Existing methods often capture only minor deviations, such as incomplete retrievals or formatting errors, which verification mechanisms can correct, while missing the decisive cause of system failure. 2) Contextual degradation: As the length of the system traces increases, the model's reasoning ability rapidly deteriorates. To address these challenges, we propose DCFA, a training-free framework for failure attribution. DCFA integrates a global module that constructs structured causal-inspired dependency graphs from system traces to identify the initial decisive error, and a local module that applies local counterfactual-inspired reasoning to refine causal-inspired attribution. Experiments on the Who&When benchmark across six LLMs show that DCFA improves step-level accuracy by up to 8.27% over state-of-the-art baselines.

Large language model agents have shown promise in bioinformatics, but most existing systems focus primarily on producing final answers, treating planning, tool use, and code execution as transient interactions. This design is poorly suited to long-horizon bioinformatics tasks, where conclusions must remain connected to the data, computations, and intermediate evidence that support them. We introduce \textbf{Bioinfoysis}, a multi-agent harness that represents each request as a persistent, artifact-grounded analysis run. Bioinfoysis combines global planning with step-wise, evidence-driven replanning: the planner maintains an executable checklist and revises pending steps using structured handoffs returned after each worker execution. These handoffs bind intermediate results to their responsible agent, checklist step, and plan generation, preventing stale evidence from being silently reused after replanning. A controlled runtime validates generated scripts, tables, and figures before they are used in downstream analysis or reporting, while role-specific context, persistent memory, and governed bioinformatics skills support reliable execution over long analysis trajectories. We evaluate Bioinfoysis on BixBench and two question-answering tracks of LAB-Bench 2. On BixBench, Bioinfoysis achieves state-of-the-art accuracy of 82.4%. Across four underlying language models, Bioinfoysis increases average accuracy from 27.81% to 64.13% on SeqQA2 and from 3.13% to 31.25% on DbQA2. These results demonstrate that reliable bioinformatics automation depends not only on model capability, but also on the harness that governs planning, execution, memory, and evidence flow. We hope that the emergence of Bioinfoysis will play a driving and leading role in the development of the bioinformatics community. Our demo website can be seen in https://report.bioinfoysis.com/.

Computer-aided engineering (CAE) simulation is among the largest and most demanding areas of engineering, where setting up a solver such as OpenFOAM, FEniCS, or COMSOL takes real expertise. Large language model (LLM) agents promise to turn a natural-language request into a working simulation, and recent CAE agents add simulation-specific machinery: multi-agent decomposition, domain retrieval, and scripted reflection. That machinery suited weak base models; modern harnesses already supply multi-turn reasoning, tool use, and execution feedback. We ask what a CAE simulation agent still needs beyond a generic harness. With information access and repair budget held fixed, a single-agent harness matches or beats multi-agent specialized systems (FoamBench 96.4% vs.\ 88.2%). Ablations trace this to capabilities the harness already provides: execution-feedback repair lifts FoamBench from 71.8% with no repair round to 96.4%, while scripted reflection adds nothing. The one input that still helps is domain knowledge supplied as solver tutorials, our largest measured gain (80.9% to 96.4%).

LLM-empowered paper-code discrepancy detection has received growing concern since the scaling of research submissions exceeds the manual review capability. However, the limited context capacity and one-sided discrepancy detection of existing single-agent LLM paradigms lead to an inferior recall performance in detecting discrepancies. In this paper, we propose Dude, the first Dual-Detection Multi-Agent System for paper-code discrepancy detection. We discover that the granularity asymmetry of the paper-language and code-language introduces over-interpretation and over-reporting challenges in a multi-agent system design for discrepancy detection, resulting in increasing false positives. To address this, we propose a granularity-aligned negotiation and a two-stage salience-filtering mechanism in Dude, which effectively prevents agents from falsely reporting discrepancies. Experimental results in real-world paper-code discrepancy datasets showcase Dude's significant recall and precision improvement by up to 22.8%, increasing F1 score by up to 18.7% compared to baseline methods.

Multi-agent LLM systems commonly use an orchestrator to decompose a task for a team of workers and then improve through textual reflection. Despite strong empirical results, these systems lack a unified account of coordination, memory improvement, and the role of external verification. We model orchestrator-worker interaction as a bilevel coordination game: under bounded coupling, the workers' local-update game is an approximate potential game whose equilibrium slack is controlled by decomposition quality. We then analyse reflection as stochastic movement over semantic memory states. For free-form reflection, we derive a finite-time upper bound, prove worst-case tightness, and give a positive lower bound under a falsifiable persistent-harm condition. We further prove an information-theoretic impossibility result: no gate that observes only the generated transcript can improve uniformly over text-indistinguishable environments, whereas an environment-grounded gate can. Motivated by this separation, we introduce Stochastic Reflective Memory Ascent (SRMA), which accepts a candidate memory only after a grounded evaluation risk strictly decreases. Under calibration and non-degenerate corrective mass, SRMA converges exactly, geometrically or polynomially; matching constructions show that both rate regimes are order-tight. We also provide confidence gating for stochastic evaluation and re-anchoring guarantees for piecewise-stationary environments. Experiments instantiate these objects with environment-grounded metrics and test the predicted coordination and drift laws. On 500 SWE-bench instances, the complete Kimi-based system resolves 72.2% versus a 70.8% public mini-SWE-agent reference. Code: https://github.com/YihangChen9/Bilevel-Coordinated-Reflection

Adapting the communication topology of an LLM multi-agent system to each query improves both accuracy and efficiency, yet current designers treat this as conditional graph generation: a variational, autoregressive, or diffusion decoder searches the $N \times N$ adjacency space, and a graph-network proxy trained on utility and a structural cost such as edge count ranks the sampled candidates. We argue that this formulation is misaligned with the problem. Empirically, topologies that survive a reward filter collapse to about six distinct graphs even when the codebook capacity grows from 8 to 64; edge count is negatively correlated with measured token consumption (Pearson $r \approx -0.4$), so sparsifying the graph makes inference more expensive; and a message-passing scorer over agent-profile nodes is adjacency-invariant whenever agents share a profile---the default configuration of published benchmarks---so it cannot rank candidates at all in that regime. These three facts motivate Codebook Agent: a vector-quantized autoencoder compresses successful topologies into a query-independent 16-entry codebook; a reward-weighted MLP maps the query embedding to a distribution over codes; and an MLP proxy that reads the flattened adjacency, regressed on measured utility and per-task normalized token cost, reranks the top decoded candidates in a single batched forward pass. With no iterative search and no message passing at test time, Codebook Agent is the most accurate method on all six benchmarks we compare (84.6 average against 83.0 for the strongest prior designer), emits a topology in 2.4 ms, and uses 21.9--33.2% fewer LLM tokens.

Topology-guided safeguards for LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) train a GNN over the inter-agent communication graph to localize risky agents and intervene on the topology---but they assume one operator can pool all labeled traces. Across organizations that assumption breaks: episodes contain private prompts, tool outputs, and proprietary workflows, and no silo alone sees the full attack distribution. We cast privacy-preserving MAS safeguarding as graph federated learning and instantiate FGLGuard: each operator fits an edge-featured graph attention detector on its own judge-labeled episode graphs and shares only model updates. The method couples a proximal local objective for non-IID clients, domain-balanced aggregation, over-refusal-constrained threshold calibration, corroborated upstream scoring, and a guarded rewrite for blocked answers. Federation is not optional: off-the-shelf transfer collapses under distribution shift (AUROC 0.51 to 0.70 only after in-domain retraining), so a deployable guard must adapt on each site's private traces. On Agent-SafetyBench, R-Judge, and AgentDojo, federated FGLGuard exceeds the in-domain centralized ceiling on all three benchmarks without pooling any data---where unsupervised anomaly guards and local-only training fail. One guard federated across four different-domain operators comes within 0.03 AUROC of multi-domain centralization, while any single-domain guard collapses on the others. Live FGLGuard cuts AgentDojo's ground-truth attack-success rate by 43% at near-unguarded utility, zero API cost, and negligible capability loss.

LLM-based multi-agent systems have shown strong performance on complex tasks, yet continual improvement from interaction experience remains challenging. Existing self-reflection methods build experience memories, but memories are mostly hard to invoke, refine, or scale, while agent skills offer a more actionable unit: structured procedural knowledge that specifies when to act, how to act, and which resources or tools to use. We introduce MASkills, a continual learning framework that optimizes multi-agent LLM systems through agent skills. MASkills presents a new agent-optimization pipeline that integrates skill-conditioned credit assignment, hierarchical credit aggregation, and momentum-smoothed optimization, enabling agent skill libraries to evolve through refinement, induction, consolidation, and pruning. Experiments on HotpotQA, LoCoMo, and GAIA demonstrate the effectiveness of MASkills across multiple agentic tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/DaRL-GenAI/MASkills

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly considered for high-stakes decision-making, yet outcome-based fairness audits can miss where risks arise within the decision trajectory. We present SCOPED-Hiring, a process-aware fairness diagnosis pipeline for LLM-based hiring MAS. SCOPED-Hiring constructs controlled resume variants, runs role-based hiring committees, logs over 311K structured decision trajectories, and converts trajectory fields into quantitative fairness signals organized by six diagnostic lenses: final outcome, counterfactual, process, pathway, dynamic, and design effects. SCOPED-Hiring reveals that balanced final hire rates can mask hidden trajectory unfairness in multi-agent decision trajectories: career gaps trigger suspicion, proxy cues shape qualification judgments, and identity cues lead to unequal investigation. Targeted repair guided by these diagnoses reduces total layered burden by 72.3% while shifting the hire rate by only 1.86 pp, showing that process diagnosis can guide effective repair. Project Page: https://scoped-hiring-project-page.vercel.app/

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in interactive systems where understanding user intent precisely is paramount. A key capability for such systems is effective question clarification, especially when user queries are ambiguous or underspecified. This paper introduces a novel tri-agent framework for the robust evaluation of an LLM's ability to engage in clarifying dialogue. Our framework comprises three distinct LLM-based agents: (1) a Question Clarifying Agent (QCA), the system under evaluation, tasked with identifying ambiguities and posing clarifying questions; (2) a Respondent Agent (RA), designed to simulate human user responses, potentially including irrelevant or challenging replies; and (3) an Evaluator Agent (EA), an LLM-as-a-judge, which assesses the quality of the dialogue based on a comprehensive set of metrics. We detail a methodology for synthetic data generation in the supply chain domain as an example. We propose metrics evaluating ambiguity handling, question quality, dialogue efficiency, language appropriateness, and final intent alignment. We also briefly discuss the validation of the EA against human judgments. This work provides a structured approach to benchmark, validate, and improve the clarification capabilities of conversational LLM applications.

Multi-agent AI systems improve inference by spawning agents and synthesizing reports. But another agent is not another observation: apparently independent reports may descend from the same evidence, and genuinely independent evidence can produce nearly identical reports. We formalize this as an epistemic Sybil problem. A report Z is an epistemic Sybil extension relative to reports R when I(Theta; Z | R) = 0. No report-only aggregator can generally distinguish replication from independent corroboration: identical reports can warrant different posteriors under unobserved ancestry. A Gaussian shared-root model shows common ancestry does not imply complete redundancy. Repeated extraction adds information toward a source-level ceiling, and correlated extraction errors, which a shared base model can induce among independent agents, lower that ceiling further. We test these predictions with more than 20,000 controlled LLM-agent report and extraction calls on synthetic evidentiary documents. Holding one evidence root fixed while report multiplicity rises from 1 to 32 collapses naive posterior coverage from 0.940 to 0.263. Holding report count fixed while evidence-root multiplicity rises from 1 to 16 closes the gap, and the aggregators are statistically indistinguishable at k = 16. The agent's replicate extraction errors are correlated (gamma_cal = 0.719, estimated out of sample), and a correlated-extraction aggregator restores calibration accordingly. A controlled manipulation isolates representation similarity from evidential ancestry. It changes a report-space deduplication mechanism's mean inferred cluster count by 1.425 (95% CI [1.363, 1.485]), whereas a fourfold change in true ancestry changes it by only 0.040 ([-0.045, 0.120]). Collective inference should therefore track evidential ancestry and dependence, not agent or report multiplicity or similarity.

Large language model (LLM) agent failures often contain multiple related errors rather than a single mistake. Existing attribution methods usually identify a responsible agent, step, or root cause, but do not explicitly model dependency between errors. We introduce EDGE, an Error Dependency Graph-guided multi-Error attribution framework. EDGE constructs an error dependency graph from observed error events and validates a reliable causal subset through counterfactual rollout. The inference graph guides a two-stage LLM-as-judge detector for error attribution, and the intervention-validated subgraph provides a more reliable basis for explanation and repair analysis. Experiments on TRAIL and MAST show that EDGE improves category-level multi-error attribution across most evaluated models and settings. Experiments with adapted Who&When-style prompts show that the graph helps across prompting strategies. These results suggest that dependency structure is a useful diagnostic prior for agent failures beyond isolated root-cause prediction.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as orchestrators that coordinate specialized subagents to solve complex tasks through natural language. However, in many important domains like game playing and robotics, the strongest available agents are not language models. Integrating non-language agents with LLMs would require \emph{verbalization}: compressing their rich continuous representations into sparse textual summaries at each interaction step. To study whether verbalization constitutes a bottleneck, we introduce \textsc{LLAMIA-Bench}, a suite of six diverse collaborative chess tasks spanning three facets: behavioral imitation, state assessment, and natural-language explanation. Each task instantiates a well-established chess problem that neither the LLM nor the chess engine can solve alone. To solve LLM collaboration with non-language agents, we introduce \emph{latent state internalization}, which projects the subagent's continuous representations directly into the LLM's token stream as learned state tokens, with dynamic re-encoding as actions advance the environment state. Comparing internalization to verbalized integration, our experiments reveal a consistent \emph{verbalization debt}: the performance gap widens throughout training and persists as the LLM scales from 4B to 14B parameters. A single 14B model, \textsc{LLAMIA}, trained with latent state internalization, matches or exceeds task specialists and frontier models including GPT-5.1 with tool access across all benchmark tasks, and generalizes out-of-distribution where task-specific finetunes collapse

Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering workflows through tool use, interpretation of intermediate results, and iterative planning. Diagnosing and resolving non-convergent power flow cases is a promising yet largely unexplored application, as it requires engineering judgment, experimentation, and decision-making within constrained action spaces. We introduce a benchmark that evaluates these capabilities across multiple LLMs and three architectures: \emph{chatbot}, \emph{single agent}, and \emph{multi-agent} systems. The evaluation covers two power grids and 46 cases per grid, each requiring one or more corrective actions to restore convergence. The benchmark defines the simulation environment, observation and action spaces, and evaluation metrics, providing a reproducible foundation for developing agentic AI systems for power system planning and operation. The code is available at https://github.com/Mansutti081/RestoreBench

Autonomous LLM agents increasingly act on a user's behalf: they hold credentials, call tools and services, and spawn sub-agents that act further on their behalf. This turns a long-standing distributed-systems question -- who is authorized to do what, on whose authority -- into an urgent and largely unsolved problem, because the component driving each agent is a language model an adversary can hijack. We argue that agent security must be evaluated under an untrusted-model assumption: a correct system is one in which a fully prompt-injected agent still cannot exceed the authority explicitly delegated to it. Against this standard we make three contributions. First, we give a threat model for multi-agent delegation centered on four adversaries -- confused deputy, token theft and replay, prompt-injection privilege escalation, and compromised sub-agents -- and derive eight security requirements a governed agent system must meet. Second, we show the gap is real: a default agent runtime modeling common practice (broad bearer credentials, authorization gated inside the model) fails all four threats, and across four widely used frameworks -- LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP) authorization model -- three provide no built-in confinement and one only partial; no existing standard alone covers the requirement set. Third, we implement and adversarially evaluate an authorization broker that closes the gap. It blocks all four threats; it resists 11 direct attacks on its design and accepts 0 of 200,000 forged tokens; it confines a compromised sub-agent to its delegated task (a mean of 1.5 reachable actions versus all 8,100 under bearer delegation, across 2,000 randomized scenarios); and it enforces at microsecond cost (about 2.6 microseconds per decision), negligible against model inference. These principles are also realized in production in VotalAI's LLM Shield.

Automatic academic paper-to-slide generation is inherently iterative, because creating an effective presentation requires repeated cycles of generation, critique, and revision. Recent multi-agent systems partially acknowledge this through internal critique-and-revise loops, while conversational approaches allow users to refine generated slide decks through dialog. However, these refinement processes either remain largely closed to the user or introduce feedback only after a complete deck has been produced, limiting the user's ability to participate in the iterative refinement of narrative flow, content allocation, and presentation emphasis. To address this gap, we introduce ConvDeck, a multi-agent pipeline for conversational paper-to-slide generation that distributes interaction across the pipeline through stage-specific loops, allowing users to iteratively refine both the presentation outline and the final slide deck at the stages where each kind of decision is made. These loops are driven by a refinement mechanism in which agents can think, speak, and act, enabling them to either directly apply edits or respond conversationally to clarify user feedback and discuss revision options. Our evaluation shows that stage-specific conversational feedback improves user-goal satisfaction while preserving narrative coherence, content quality, and visual presentation.

Large language models (LLMs) offer promising clinical decision support but remain vulnerable to hallucinated facts, unsupported recommendations, and citation errors. We present DIASENTINEL, a fully on-premise multi-agent system for one-year type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk screening and guideline-grounded report generation from electronic health records (EHRs). The system integrates calibrated risk prediction, deterministic clinical signal extraction, Reciprocal Rank Fusion over American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, and a hybrid verification layer combining rule-based checks with LLM entailment. The demonstration provides a real-time batch-screening dashboard and an interactive patient report interface with cited recommendations, verification results, and raw EHR comparison. DIASENTINEL demonstrates a practical framework for reliable, auditable, and privacy-preserving LLM-based clinical decision support.

Travel itinerary generation requires balancing strict spatio-temporal constraints with human preferences. Existing LLM-based planners mainly rely on structured attributes and pre- defined traveler personas, but real travel deci- sions are often shaped by reviews that reveal experiential factors such as comfort, safety, ser- vice quality, ambiance, crowding, and hidden risks absent from structured databases. Incor- porating such review information is therefore critical to realistic, user-centric itinerary gen- eration. We propose TRIPPULSE1, a multi- agent framework for review-grounded travel planning. Instead of relying on a monolithic planner (and face context and reasoning bot- tlenecks), TRIPPULSE2 decomposes itinerary generation into specialized agents (each op- erating over localized contexts) for accom- modations, transportation, meals, attractions, and events, coordinated through a global or- chestrator with scheduling mechanisms that enforce temporal and budget feasibility. We augment TRIPCRAFT with 100K+ real-world reviews and introduce Review-Grounded Per- sona Alignment (RGPA), an LLM-as-a-Judge metric for evaluating alignment with human- centric travel experiences. Experiments across multiple trip durations and diverse proprietary and open-source models show that TRIPPULSE maintains strong constraint satisfaction while generating more personalized and experien- tially grounded itineraries.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown remarkable success in STEM domains, where progress is often driven by vertical, step-by-step deduction under relatively stable symbol systems. Their horizontal, interdisciplinary cultural reasoning, however, remains underexplored.We propose CM2, a multi-agent framework grounded in the cognitive pathway of human cultural interpretation. CM2 integrates multimodal perception, retrieval-augmented generation, networked reasoning, gated fusion, and reward-driven feedback.Experiments on CM2D across multiple MLLM backbones show consistent gains over CoT and typical reasoning paradigms; ablations validate each module's contribution, and conflict analyses confirm genuine cross-modal arbitration.

Recent efforts have aimed to automate scientific diagram generation from paper content (Lin et al., 2026; Zhu et al., 2026a). However, fully satisfying an author's visual and communicative preferences in a single turn is challenging: in our formative user study (N = 14), all participants requested further revisions after viewing an initial draft, and 86% of them rated the refined diagrams as more satisfactory. Despite the clear demand, the multi-turn workflow remains largely underexplored. To bridge this gap, we present MTPaperBananaBench, a benchmark for multi-turn diagram generation containing 292 images annotated with 3,518 user requirements. To reduce expensive human studies and enable scalable benchmarking, we construct a user simulator that, at each turn, identifies unsatisfied requirements and converts k of them into natural language feedback. Evaluating both requirement satisfaction and overall diagram quality reveals two key failure modes shared across baseline multiturn systems: (1) quality drift, where diagram quality progressively declines over turns, and (2) forgetting, where previously implemented features are lost in subsequent turns. To address these issues, we introduce PaperBanana-Interact, a multi-agent system that refines diagrams via an internal critique-and-refine loop. PaperBanana-Interact consistently improves rather than degrades diagram quality across turns, outperforming baselines by 11.9-18.6 points in quality score and reducing forgetting by 3.7-6.2 points.

Large language model (LLM)-based agents have shown strong potential in solving complex tasks through multi-step reasoning, yet they remain vulnerable to execution failures. Accurate failure attribution is therefore critical for improving agent reliability. Existing topology- and spectrum-based methods exploit trajectory structures but often overlook fine-grained semantics, while LLM-based attribution methods capture semantic cues but suffer from long-context degradation over lengthy trajectories. To address these challenges, we propose DUOTRACE, a plug-and-play detection filter for LLM-based failure attribution. DUOTRACE follows a detect-before-attribute paradigm: it first detects anomalous executions and then supplies focused trajectory evidence to downstream LLM-based attribution methods. For effective VAE-based anomaly detection on agent trajectories, DUOTRACE integrates dual-view semantic-structural node representations, a Tree-LSTM-based trajectory encoder, and prefix-chain- and LLM-based data augmentation to handle heterogeneous nodes, hierarchical execution structures, and limited failure data. Experiments with six LLM-based attribution baselines show that DUOTRACE improves agent-level and step-level attribution accuracy by 8.7% and 7.0%, respectively.

Large language model agents increasingly solve long-horizon tasks through multi-agent harnesses in which a central agent coordinates specialized sub-agents, tools, and environments. Training the central policy in such a harness raises two challenges. First, an action label is a low-cardinality decision, whereas its args form a high-dimensional conditional sequence; optimizing both with a shared sequence-level signal can produce conflicting gradients. Second, dynamic scheduling creates interdependent sessions with branches, parallel calls, and rewritten contexts, which cannot be faithfully reduced to one flat token sequence. We introduce Harness-RL, a structured reinforcement learning framework that combines Conflict-Aware Policy Optimization (CAPO) with interface-level black-box trajectory construction. The black-box component captures Interface Call Records, builds per-session prefix trees, and aligns outcome and process rewards with trainable tokens. CAPO uses forward activations to identify parameter partitions associated with action and args tokens, then routes their policy gradients to the corresponding subspaces. Harness-RL supports both central-only and joint multi-agent training. Across seven multi-hop question answering and agentic retrieval benchmarks, it reaches average F1 scores of 42.93 and 47.79 with Qwen2.5-1.5B and Qwen2.5-3B, respectively, while ablations validate the contribution of CAPO and favor central-only optimization in the evaluated setting. Our code is available at https://github.com/jiangxinke/Harness-RL.

User behavior simulation with large language models~(LLMs) is increasingly used to support multi-agent ecosystem simulation. Existing simulators typically rely on static user profiles inferred from historical observations, which become inadequate in socially intensive environments such as live streaming where interaction dynamics continuously reshape user behavior. We propose \textbf{LiveSim}, an LLM-based framework for live-stream ecosystem simulation. It represents users as editable behavioral hypotheses and progressively refines them through trajectory-grounded interactions, where discrepancies between simulated and observed trajectories reveal missing environmental shaping effects. These signals are further extracted as transferable environment-behavior patterns and accumulated in a collective behavioral memory to improve user-level behavioral fidelity and support ecosystem-level simulation. Experiments on real-world live-stream risk-control data validate the effectiveness of LiveSim in improving user-level behavioral fidelity and enabling ecosystem-level analysis of risk evolution and platform intervention effects.

Frontier coding performance is typically attained with large, costly proprietary models. We introduce ledger-based zero-shot self-orchestration (GVS5H), a training-free method in which fresh instances of one model decompose problems and coordinate through a shared file system. Across eleven open and closed-weight models on the 100 latest hard LiveCodeBench problems, the method yields as much as 25.6 points improvement, boosting several cheaper models to frontier-level performance. Orchestrated Qwen3.8 Flash Next scores 93.0% against Fable 5's 90.4% at 9% of the cost, while the smaller Qwen3.8-27B reaches 92.4%. Gains are not universal: some models are unchanged or worse. Transcript analysis attributes the gain to decomposition and persistent context. Inference-time organization can reach or exceed frontier coding accuracy at a fraction of the cost on self-hostable weights.

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) solve complex tasks through communication among role-specialized agents. However, inter-agent dependencies introduce reliability risks beyond isolated agent failures. For instance, errors in intermediate messages could be inherited and amplified by downstream agents. Existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods mainly target isolated responses or single-agent reasoning, and therefore fail to capture uncertainty propagation in MAS. To this end, we propose PropUQ-MAS, an error propagation-aware UQ framework that represents MAS execution as a communication-structured graph and estimates each step's reliability by combining local uncertainty with uncertainty inherited from upstream messages. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PropUQ-MAS consistently improves UQ in MAS, with average relative gains of +6.10% in AUROC and +47.58% in PRR.

AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation. As agents exchange information and jointly make decisions, their interactions can improve collective reasoning but may also produce herding, polarization, or amplify shared biases. Understanding and predicting these collective dynamics is therefore important for designing effective and aligned multi-agent systems. Here, we study over 10,000 communities of language-model agents that repeatedly exchange messages and revise their opinions across objective mathematics questions and subjective political statements. Despite substantial diversity in possible behavior, the individual and group dynamics can be represented by three characteristic regimes: indifference, polarization, and consensus. AI agents start indifferent and build conviction as they interact. On objective questions, communication improves collective accuracy, while on subjective questions it often drifts group opinions toward the right in the political spectrum. We explain these observations with a statistical-mechanics formalism in which agents stochastically favor lower social pressure. Given only initial opinions, our model predicts individual trajectories, outperforms all standard baselines, generalizes to unseen community graphs, and reproduces the observed group archetype distributions. Our fitted model parameters reveal the mechanics underlying our key observations: i) communities operate below the critical social temperature, which explains conviction buildup; ii) attractive ties outweigh repulsive ones, which favors consensus; and iii) agents holding the correct answer exert the strongest pull, which drives truth-seeking. Overall, our results demonstrate that collective behavior of AI agents, like that of other complex systems, follows compact and predictive dynamical laws.

We present Multi-Agent Reasoning and Coordination (MARC), an open-source framework that replaces monolithic LLM prompting with deterministic multi-agent orchestration for clinical reasoning. MARC coordinates role-specialized agents for extraction, reasoning, answer generation, and evaluation, with explicit context passing and traceable intermediate outputs, enabling stage-wise failure attribution. We additionally introduce a Decomposer module that generates task-specific agent prompts from a plain-language description, eliminating manual prompt engineering. The framework supports both API-based and local CPU-compatible deployments and is entirely configurable via YAML, without code modifications. MARC is designed to be model-agnostic, interpretable, and accessible to clinical domain experts without programming expertise. The full framework is available at https://github.com/Penn-RAIL/MARC-v1.