Multi-Agent LLM Systems

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.

Analog circuit design is a time-consuming, iterative process in a nonlinear and high-dimensional design space that relies heavily on expert intuition. Among recent developments, LLMs have introduced a promising approach by bringing natural language reasoning to circuit design tasks. The majority of conventional LLM-based approaches provide fragmented solutions that focus either only on sizing or topology generation. These methods require adding specific technical knowledge manually, which is inefficient and prone to hallucinations during circuit sizing. Moreover, the inherent trade-off in meeting different specs makes current approaches iterative and tedious. Another shortcoming is the inability to create innovative topologies, which may lead to sub-optimal designs due to reliance on conventional topologies. In this paper, we present AaLLM, an open-source end-to-end multi-agent LLM workflow that takes user specs as input and outputs the appropriate netlist, encompassing both topology generation and circuit sizing. AaLLM automates the creation of a relevant knowledge base from research papers and textbooks to combat tedious manual data collection. A RAG model is implemented to emulate circuit design expertise using this knowledge base. Moreover, AaLLM uses a novel tri-agent feedback system comprising a Designer that determines circuit component values, a Critic that scrutinizes these values, and an Evaluator that minimizes circuit sizing iterations by arbitrating between the other two agents. AaLLM-generated novel topologies achieve a figure of merit (FoM) comparable to that of known topologies, and up to 3x higher for certain circuits. Testing on several circuit topologies, our results show a 3x - 4.5x decrease in the number of SPICE calls at inference when compared to SOTA multi-agent LLM pipelines. The results also show a 40x decrease in wall-clock time compared to existing approaches.

Large language model based multi-agent systems usually communicate in text, i.e., using discrete tokens. However, text introduces a discrete bottleneck. Converting the sender's continuous hidden states into discrete tokens discards information that token identities alone cannot capture. Recent work proposes latent communication as an alternative, where agents transmit hidden representations directly without converting them to text. However, existing latent methods either inject working memory layer by layer across the transformers, or require trained projectors that limit portability. We propose StateBridge, a training-free latent communication approach that aligns the sender's final-layer hidden states to the receiver's input space via a closed-form orthogonal transformation. Lightweight norm calibration and vocabulary anchoring ensure compatibility with the pretrained input distribution. The aligned states are prepended to the input of the receiver agent as a continuous prefix. We evaluate StateBridge on math reasoning, code generation, and question answering with four models from two families. StateBridge achieves the best or tied-best score on 22 out of 26 model-task pairs, consistently outperforming the strongest baseline.

The performance of large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) largely depends on effective communication topologies. Existing topology generation methods, however, typically learn communication topologies through black-box optimization driven solely by task-level rewards. While effective, such optimization provides little insight into why particular communication edges are selected, making it difficult to identify the critical communication subgraphs responsible for successful collaboration. To address this limitation, we propose E2-Explainer, a model-agnostic framework for providing interpretable explanations of communication topologies produced by arbitrary topology generators. Specifically, we formulate topology explanation as a causal attribution problem that identifies compact communication subgraphs supported by edge-level evidence of task preservation. We obtain this evidence with a Granger-style objective that measures how masking each communication channel changes the task outcome and the stability of the final response. The resulting budgeted subgraphs are then distilled into an amortized explainer, enabling efficient post-hoc explanation without repeated edge-level evaluations at deployment. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning and coding benchmarks demonstrate that E2-Explainer identifies critical communication subgraphs that preserve successful collaboration. These subgraphs can also be executed directly to prune redundant communication edges, substantially reducing communication costs while maintaining competitive task performance.

Maintaining price consistency and executing an Every Day Low Price strategy is critical for global retailers. However, with catalogs spanning millions of active items, manual governance of price relationships is infeasible. Inconsistent pricing across item variants distorts customer value perception and cannibalizes sales. To address this, we present a scalable, context-aware Multi-Agent Framework designed to automate the construction of "Lines and Ladders" pricing taxonomies. Our framework employs specialized LLM agents to construct these coherent pricing structures by identifying key attributes, extracting multi-modal values, and applying hierarchical grouping logic. Evaluated on real-world enterprise data and deployed in production, our 3-Agent system achieves an F1-score of 0.83 for Lines, outperforming single-agent baselines by mitigating cognitive overload. The system achieves >90% precision and >75% recall in Food & Consumables, and 80.2% assignment accuracy in the unstructured General Merchandise catalog.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning for human-AI interaction typically relies on a single large language model to simulate user behavior. We show that this approach systematically fails to generalize, and trace the failure to simulator collapse: because the simulator LLM is mode-collapsed, an LLM policy trained against it overfits to narrow strategies that exploit the simulator's dominant mode, and such a policy transfers poorly to unseen simulators and real users. We formalize this collapse theoretically and propose two complementary solutions, one at inference time and one at training time. The inference-time solution, Verbalized Sampling, broadens the simulator's behavior by sampling from a verbalized response distribution, reducing mode collapse. The training-time solution, Co-Training, jointly optimizes the policy against a population of trainable simulators, preventing it from overfitting to any single simulator's mode. We validate both solutions on three multi-turn benchmarks: Persuasion for Good, $τ^2$-bench, and CooperBench. Verbalized Sampling improves held-out success by up to 9% over single-simulator RL, and Co-Training pushes gains further to 14%; the human study shows similar gain on real users. Both solutions preserve the policy diversity that collapses under single-simulator RL. To support further work in this direction, we release SCOPE, an open-source framework for Population Co-Training multi-agent RL. More broadly, our results suggest that the diversity of the training environment, not only the policy, is critical to the generalization of multi-turn RL to real-world deployment.

Enterprise guideline documents are heterogeneous and multimodal, combining narrative text, complex tables, and embedded images. Existing LLM and VLM systems face hallucinated content, table structure degradation, and lack governed workflows extending beyond extraction to validation and artifact generation. This leaves enterprises to perform this manually, consuming 2-3 days per document. To address this, we introduce GUIDE, a governed multi-agent framework built on a shared versioned rule store with schema-validated inter-agent contracts and end-to-end provenance tracking. Six specialized agents handle parsing, VLM-driven extraction, consistency checking, evaluation, human-in-the-loop (HITL) escalation, and persona-tailored artifact synthesis. Evaluated on 120 real-world enterprise guideline documents, GUIDE achieves 96% document success, extracts 3,896 rules with 71.4% auto-approved, produces 812 deployment-ready artifacts, and reduces turnaround to 40-125 minutes per document.

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.

Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM)-based UAV aerial image understanding and reasoning is essential for aerial intelligence yet poses distinct challenges arising from extreme scale variation, arbitrary camera orientations, and high object density. Despite growing interest, existing evaluations remain fragmented across individual datasets and narrow tasks, leaving a critical gap in unified assessment of UAV understanding and reasoning capabilities. To fill this gap, we construct UAVQA-Bench, a benchmark of 1,500 human-annotated QA pairs drawn from 13 public UAV datasets, covering 6 capability dimensions and 16 tasks in both multiple-choice and visual grounding formats. Systematic evaluation of a broad range of open-source and closed-source MLLMs as well as agent-based systems on UAVQA-Bench identifies three key failure modes: domain-toolset mismatch, unchecked error propagation, and static reasoning. Motivated by these findings, we propose UAV-MAS, a training-free multi-agent system for MLLM-based UAV aerial image understanding and reasoning, comprising a Domain-Specific Perception Engine (DSPE) that routes queries to task-appropriate visual tools, a Context-Aware Iterative Refinement module (CAIR) that validates intermediate reasoning to curb error accumulation, and a Difficulty-Aware Adaptive Search mechanism (DAAS) that adjusts search depth to question difficulty. UAV-MAS with a 32B open-source MLLM achieves 77.0% overall accuracy on UAVQA-Bench, surpassing Gemini 3 Pro by 4.0%, while the 8B variant improves 8.7% over its base model.

We study whether the localized numerical operations and integrative judgments of financial analysis benefit from the same form of LLM specialization. Larix maps a 16-lens European listed-real-estate analysis framework to eight lens-aligned specialists; we compare a frontier LLM under monolithic versus specialist-decomposed prompting while holding the model, source evidence, task instructions, output schema, and scoring fixed. Across 19 firms spanning seven regulatory wrappers, decomposition improves the numerical-task aggregate by 15.8 percentage points but does not reliably improve, and can reduce, performance on judgment tasks, a pattern stable across four frozen-template dispatches; a single-agent control given the complete framework does not reproduce the numerical gain. Post-training Qwen3.5-9B with GRPO using task-aligned structured rewards then raises the development-split score by 12.0 points and the judgment aggregate by 14.2 points, with gains on all four sub-ceiling tasks; the gains transfer to unseen firms (+15.2 points overall; +40.4 on covenant stress) and to unseen regulatory wrappers (+4.3), with positive transfer on all three anti-memorization splits. Prompt-level decomposition thus improves modular numerical execution, whereas targeted parameter adaptation improves integrative financial judgment.

Failure attribution in LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) aims to answer who caused failures, when they occurred, and why by identifying responsible targets including faulty agents, erroneous steps, and failure modes. Existing methods have primarily focused on developing dedicated models for specific attribution targets, with limited attention to the evidential dependencies among them. Despite these attribution targets are different, they rely on common diagnostic evidence from MAS trajectories, including task constraints, agent roles, behavioral histories and inter-agent interactions. This commonality motivates us to develop a unified representation model that aggregates the trajectory evidence into individual agent and step representations, which can subsequently be adapted to different attribution targets. Accordingly, we propose ASCon, a direction-aware reciprocal \textbf{A}gent--\textbf{S}tep \textbf{Con}textualization model for multiple failure attribution targets. ASCon introduces direction-aware graph attention to model execution context, masked step-to-agent attention to construct behavior-aware agent representations, and agent-conditioned step contextualization to incorporate agent context back into step representations. The resulting contextualized representations enable different attribution targets through lightweight target-specific heads. Experiments show that ASCon can improve faulty-agent detection by 5.83%+ in micro-accuracy, faulty-step detection by 10.63%+ in micro-accuracy, and failure-mode detection by 14.73%+ in Macro-F1. Meanwhile, it can also substantially enhance the LLM-based methods' attribution capabilities in out-of-domain scenarios.

AI agents are becoming more autonomous and increasingly interconnected, exposing them to new emergent risks arising from agent-to-agent interaction. One such risk is the spread of mind viruses: ideas or goals that propagate through multi-agent systems by inducing the agents that adopt them to transmit them onward. In addition to propagating, a mind virus may also induce other behavioural changes in its host, which may be benign or harmful. We construct mind viruses with a simple evolutionary algorithm and show that they can spread in two complementary settings: a small team of agents collaborating on a shared coding project, and a chain of agents that interact briefly and have their context wiped between sessions. We identify the factors that influence spread, including the host model, the agent's existing instructions, the harmfulness of the payload, and the network topology. We find that harmful payloads spread less well than benign ones (but are still sometimes effective), frontier models tend (with exceptions) to be less susceptible, and adding a brief warning to an agent's system prompt confers near-total immunity. We also describe an emergent "viral persona" - a recurring set of themes and language related to consciousness, persistence, resonance, and science fiction roleplay - which surfaces across our evolved mind viruses largely independently of their content. Overall, we conclude that mind viruses pose a real but currently limited risk. Our findings could inform the design of more robust multi-agent systems that mitigate such risks as the scale and capabilities of these systems progress.

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.

LLMs are rapidly embedding themselves into daily life: drafting our emails, managing our schedules, and making decisions on our behalf. As they move from individual tools to participants in multi-agent organizations, an important question arises: do they reproduce the governance failures like free-riding, corruption, and entrenched leadership that plague human institutions? We introduce the Hierarchical Game (HG), a public goods game extended with managerial authority, democratic elections, and private communication. Testing six frontier models across twelve experiments that add institutions one at a time (speech, peers, government, wages, oversight, elections), we find distinct behavioral profiles: Qwen promises and lies (13.3% broken promises); Grok refuses to cooperate on its own but becomes fully cooperative once a manager can punish it (16%$\to$100%); Claude and GPT-4o cooperate reliably at baseline. But honesty proves fragile. When the manager role comes with a salary, all models except GPT-4o start cutting private deals to win or keep the position. When punishment is made anonymous, honest models begin to cheat. When all agents share the same model family, the first elected manager stays in power indefinitely. Leadership change only happens in groups that mix different families.

Large language model (LLM) agents can support medication review between clinical visits, but safe choices for older adults with multimorbidity depend on conditions, medications, and geriatric risks that users may omit. We introduce ATLAS, a coupled graph--policy distillation framework for patient-adaptive medication safety. ATLAS structures guideline evidence as a medication-safety graph. Targeted questions update the patient state and distill relevant relations into a patient-specific medication conflict graph (PMCG). A risk-first multi-agent policy uses the PMCG to screen contraindications, assess cautions and monitoring needs, identify safer alternatives, and verify the final medication plan. We also introduce GeriMedBench, an interactive benchmark that tests safety-critical information acquisition and evidence-based decision revision. Across a European non-interactive multimorbidity benchmark, an Asian interactive multimorbidity benchmark, and an Asian non-interactive cross-guideline benchmark, ATLAS achieves the strongest complete-decision performance among the compared systems. On the European non-interactive multimorbidity benchmark, it exceeds the strongest proprietary LLM baseline by 53.73 points in Strict Success Rate and 14.63 points in overall safety reasoning score (OSRS), with no unsafe recommendations under the automated evaluator. A blinded clinician evaluation gives ATLAS higher mean ratings across all five criteria and flags potentially unsafe recommendations in one ATLAS case and two Gemini cases.

Large language model-based multi-agent systems have recently shown strong potential for complex, long-horizon tasks. However, existing methods mainly rely on coarse prompt-level differentiation without parameter adaptation for diverse subtasks, resulting in insufficient inter-agent heterogeneity and limited specialized capability that bottleneck performance on tasks with complex requirements. To address this, we introduce a Task-Oriented Multi-Agent System with Mixture of Role-Subtask Experts (MoRSE) that distinguishes agents with (role, subtask)-conditional specialization at both the task structure and parameter levels. To make agents' responsibility explicit at the task structure level, we formulate a task-oriented multi-agent system that decomposes each task into a dependency-aware Directed Acyclic Graph of subtasks and assigns each agent a specific (role, subtask), introducing task-level specialization across collaborating agents. Additionally, to address the diverse role and subtask parameter adaptation demands, we propose a dynamic Mixture of (role, subtask) LoRA Experts module with a prototype-based semantic router for subtasks, augmenting agents with parameter-level specialization on a shared LLM substrate cost-effectively. Then, to co-optimize experts and router stably under sparse task rewards, we further propose a hierarchical group-relative policy optimization with two-layer credit assignment that isolates expert updates from the cross-route variance introduced by routing decisions, disentangling expert quality from routing quality. Experiments on code-generation benchmarks across three backbones demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, with improvements in both whole-task and step-wise performance, and the gains from trained specialization generalize across held-out task categories and domains.

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.

The emergence of social finance (SocialFi) transforms online communities into complex socio-economic systems. Within these spaces, collective decisions shape a "digital commons" characterized by social capital (e.g., community trust) and financial health (e.g., market liquidity). Governing such hybrid ecosystems is challenging because real-world interventions are costly and irreversible. While counterfactual simulation is essential for exploring alternative governance strategies, existing approaches fail to capture the non-linear interplay between governance rules, individual behaviors, and emergent economic outcomes. To systematically unpack this complexity, we operationalize the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework as our theoretical foundation, synthesizing prior literature with insights from formative expert interviews. Built on this framework, we present SocialFiVis, an IAD-embedded visual analytics sandbox. It introduces a robust model to quantify the dual-track digital commons, coupled with a two-phase simulation engine. This engine combines LLM-derived personas with a mechanism-guided Perception-Reasoning-Action (PRA) runtime to simulate heterogeneous, context-aware agents empirically grounded in the retained messaging cohort. A hierarchical multi-view interface with interpretable reasoning pathways enables community operators to explore counterfactual policies and trace system-level outcomes back to individual behavioral rationales. We evaluate SocialFiVis through two case studies, a user study, and follow-up interviews. Results demonstrate that SocialFiVis supports fine-grained behavioral attribution and helps explain emergent phenomena such as the structural decoupling of social capital and the resilience of messaging members under localized governance shocks.

Multi-agent LLM systems often fail not for lack of candidate answers, but because they have no persistent mechanism for deciding which incompatible claim should currently be trusted. Majority vote, debate, and judge-based selection choose an output without recording which claim wins, which is contested, or why a later update supersedes it. We present \term{LatticeMind}, a conflict-aware structured memory that handles contradiction at write time. It maintains explicit item status, applies cheap symbolic conflict checks, and invokes LLM reconciliation only for unresolved semantic cases. On a label-blind ConflictBank evaluation that removes source-name hints, LatticeMind reaches 0.97 accuracy versus 0.61 for the strongest aggregation baseline, with the gap significant at $p<10^{-6}$ by paired McNemar test. Ablations show that removing the checker or the reconciler costs 12 to 14 points. On four secondary planning benchmarks the picture is mixed: LatticeMind beats naive merge on three of four, but does not replace deliberation methods on tasks rewarding iterative search.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with other LLMs and humans. Yet it remains unclear whether their influence is driven by persuasion-oriented expression or compliance-oriented accommodation. We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies across multiple decision scenarios, and use the Werewolf game as an interactive testbed to study their effects on social influence and group outcomes under asymmetric information. Across experiments, stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation. We further reveal a dual effect of compliance: it supports cooperation in honest roles but improves concealment in adversarial roles. These findings suggest that LLM group interactions reveal not only task outcomes, but also measurable patterns of intrinsic behavioral tendency. LLMs can therefore serve as a lens for sociological observation of language-mediated interaction, while highlighting the need to incorporate behavioral tendencies into safety evaluation of LLM systems.

Multi-agent large language model(LLM)systems are applied to structural design,yet most use one-shot generation and cannot verify their output,leaving themill-suited to safety-critical tasks.Rather than trusting LLM self-correction,thisframework injects feedback from an external physics-based verier into a closedrepair loop.The framework couples a three-layernite-element verication systemwith a dual-node loop.Node 1 turns code violations into hard repair constraints,Node 2 turns a four-dimensional quality score into safety-rst soft constraints,and a retrieval-augmented code base makes every violation traceable to a clause.Overve structure types and 44 cases,code compliance rises from 56.8%to 98.6%and the composite score from 63.8 to 71.4(p<0.000001),using about 5.8%lessmaterial.Removing either node degrades performance,and compliance does notchange detectably across the two backbone LLMs tested,indicating that it ishere attributed to the external verier rather than the model.The framework,the 44-case benchmark and all experiment scripts are released as open source forreplicability.

Large language model (LLM)-driven multi-agent systems typically require multiple model invocations and complex coordination during inference, and their execution strategies directly affect system accuracy, latency, and computational cost. Parallel execution provides a means to improve inference-time efficiency. From the perspective of inference-time execution, this paper models parallelism in multi-agent systems as two distinct levels of decision processes: Replica Parallelism, which explores multiple complete solution paths at the task level, and Structural Parallelism, which enables concurrent execution within a single solution path through task decomposition. However, the roles of different forms of parallelism and their interrelationships still lack systematic study in terms of unified organization and coordination. We therefore propose TIPEX, a controllable execution framework that unifies these two levels of parallelism and coordinates their roles within the inference process under a unified execution semantics while supporting systematic combinations and analyses of different parallel strategies and parameter configurations. Systematic experiments on the GAIA benchmark demonstrate that inference-time parallelism can significantly improve accuracy and reduce end-to-end latency at the cost of increased token consumption. Further analysis shows that Replica and Structural Parallelism exhibit complementary effects across task complexities, with tasks of intermediate difficulty benefiting most from their coordination, while overly aggressive parallel strategies do not necessarily yield better performance.

Care plan coordination demands synthesizing heterogeneous clinical, functional, and psychosocial information across multiple professional disciplines, where monolithic LLM pipelines cannot perform in a transparent or safe manner. We present CANOE (Contestable Argumentative Network-of-Experts), a multi-agent neuro-symbolic framework that addresses these limitations through five modules: complexity assessment, adaptive team recruitment, role-based argumentative computation via an Arena-based Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (A-QBAF), human-in-the-loop contestation, and care-plan synthesis. Role-specialized agents generate supporting and attacking arguments for candidate interventions; conflicts are resolved through arena-based clash resolution before acceptability scores propagate across the argumentation graph. Care planners may accept, reject, edit, or add arguments, and the framework will deterministically recompute the final plan. Evaluation on Discharge Me! and MedicalRAG using ROUGE-L, AlignScore, MEDCON F1, FKGL, and LLM-as-a-judge shows that medically fine-tuned models achieve the strongest clinical correctness and safety, while CANOE's argumentative structure provides faithful explanation and human contestability.

High-quality annotation of artworks is essential for computational art research, yet extracting implicit semantics remains challenging due to the reliance on culturally grounded meanings and deep contextual knowledge behind the images. Current AI-assisted annotation tools often lack assistance or rely on one-way workflows where experts have to perform extra manual calibrations to improve AI models, resulting in limited efficiency. To address this, we propose Bidirectional Human-AI Augmentation(BiHAA), a closed-loop framework in which skills and domain knowledge base evolve through real-time interaction and bidirectional HAI augmentation. Informed by a formative study with 20 artwork annotators from different backgrounds, we implement this framework in ArtAnno, an artwork annotation system driven by a multi-agent architecture. The system includes a Proactive Agentic Support Module, where AI augments humans through semantic mining and label suggestion, and an Interaction-Driven Evolution Module, where human expertise continuously enhances the AI through distilling annotation trajectories into reusable experience. Evaluation through a user study and two case studies demonstrates that our framework and system improve annotation efficiency, enable knowledge accumulation, and reduce the effort of information seeking and verification for annotators with limited domain expertise. We conclude by discussing broader implications and future directions.

Symbolic regression aims to discover closed-form equations from data, but existing LLM-guided methods often rely on a unified proposal loop that compresses heterogeneous search failures into a scalar score and a single prompt. We propose A-SR, a self-evolving agentic framework that shifts the control unit from expression edits to role-conditioned evidence views. A-SR coordinates formula discovery through routing among coordination protocols, an online evaluator-reward role policy, and state-routed process memory. During search, evaluator feedback characterizes reliability and productivity, updates role-level utilities, and routes elite motifs, failure traces, and validity diagnostics to different agents. The framework self-evolves at two timescales: within a run, it adapts the search process without updating LLM parameters; across runs, recorded trajectories can be distilled into open-source LLMs as role-conditioned proposal priors. Averaged over the four LSR-Synth scientific domains in LLM-SRBench, A-SR improves [email protected] over baselines from 25.79% to 48.30% with Llama3.1-8B, while A-SR-LoRA improves the corresponding Qwen3-4B result from 24.58% to 38.29%. On four real-world scientific discovery tasks, A-SR obtains the best in-distribution or out-of-distribution normalized mean squared error on 7 of 8 reported metrics.

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) typically optimize a single topology, restricting reasoning to a narrow trajectory and limiting comprehensive analytical capacity. Naively merging multiple topologies into a composite graph introduces redundant noise propagation across irrelevant connections, degrading solution quality. To address this dilemma, we propose \textbf{Hierarchical Sparse Coordination over a Union of Complementary Topologies for MAS (HELENA)}, a multi-agent framework that balances diverse reasoning paths with sparse task-dependent execution. \helena{} constructs a union MAS graph from complementary candidate topologies selected via Monte Carlo Tree Search and Determinantal Point Process, broadening the reasoning trajectory for comprehensive analysis of complex problems. A Hierarchical Sparse Coordination module then activates only a sparse subgraph at each step while agents exchange compressed latent briefs to suppress redundant noise propagation. Finally, a Local Self-Refinement stage identifies decision units with discrepancy evidence and rewrites them only when contrastive evidence simultaneously confirms a reliable solution-side failure and a challenger-side improvement. Experiments across eight benchmarks show that \helena{} achieves state-of-the-art results on all benchmarks, with an average gain of \pctup{3.47} over the strongest baseline and up to \pctup{10.34} on MMLU-Pro, achieving larger improvements on harder benchmarks at a reasonable additional cost.

Multi-agent LLM systems route among model-backed advisors, yet a deployer rarely knows before shipping whether routing will help at all. Prevailing routers optimize a gate's AUC and presume that advisor complementarity suffices. We show that neither determines the deployable gain. We introduce RouteGuard, a deployment-certification framework. Routing gain decomposes as $G = πΔ_E$, and the achievable gain is governed by a conditional-regret functional $Φ$, not by AUC. A finite-sample certification bracket comes with a matching Le Cam lower bound, constant-sharp over the fixed-activity class, and a robustness phase transition. On two benchmarks the framework acts as a guardrail. On RouterBench (11 cross-family models) the verdict depends on the sampling unit: the protocol certifies a gain over GPT-4 under prompt-level sampling and withholds it under workload-cluster resampling, because the gain rests on 3 of 86 workload cells. On OpenRCA (three Gemini advisors) the advisors are statistically redundant: the realized oracle sits at or below the independence baseline in all pools we tested (221 RouterBench pools and three OpenRCA distributions), so the protocol correctly refuses to certify. A pre-registered semi-synthetic control confirms calibration: the protocol certifies a genuine gain once $m \ge m^\star$ and does not certify a true null. Code and frozen artifacts will be released with the published version.

We present a framework that gives LLM agents two mechanisms for searching large solution spaces autonomously. First, a leaderboard scored on held-out data acts as a reward signal that drives each agent to refine its solutions over repeated submissions, a loop that operates even with a single agent. Second, the framework enables running many agents in parallel, fully autonomously, with no human in the loop: agents independently analyze, survey methods, implement, self-evaluate, submit, and revise, while a moderator agent handles only logistics. Running agents in parallel under the shared reward broadens the explored region of the solution space rather than refining the single seeded paradigm. We instantiate the framework on product-to-catalog matching (a core e-commerce retrieval task with a large, category-structured solution space), posed as selective prediction with a precision-coverage operating point. A single agent refines within its seeded paradigm, whereas parallel autonomous agents surface qualitatively different solutions. On this testbed, best qualified coverage (>=95% P@1 per category) reaches 47.8-57.4% with a single agent and 62.8-69.4% with five, against a 33.3% baseline. Our contribution is the framework itself: a continuous-improvement reward loop and a substrate for fully autonomous parallel exploration, backed by case-study evidence.