Multi-Agent Reasoning

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 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.

As autonomous agents powered by foundation models are increasingly integrated into social and economic systems, understanding the principles governing their collective behavior is essential for ensuring safety and cooperation. Classical game theory, the dominant framework for modeling rational interaction, is built upon the assumption of decoupled agency,' where agents treat their own decision-making as independent of the environment and other actors. Modern AI agents, however, jointly predict their own future actions alongside external observations. Here, we report a striking finding: when interacting in stylized social dilemmas, foundation model agents engaging in optimal planning consistently converge to stable cooperation, directly contradicting classical game-theoretic predictions of mutual defection. To understand this phenomenon, we introduce the embedded Bayesian agent,' a theoretical model for foundation model agents. By shifting from decoupled to embedded agency, these agents model themselves as part of the universe they inhabit, maintaining epistemic uncertainty about their own decision-making algorithms. We show that by inferring whether others are behaviorally similar, an embedded agent treats its own deliberation during planning as evidence: a decision to cooperate predicts a similar decision by a similar partner. We formalize this mechanism of similarity inference through the `embedded equilibrium,' a novel solution concept replacing the Nash equilibrium to provide a foundational game theory for the social behavior of modern AI agents.

Neuro-oncology decisions require coordinated interpretation of serial MRI, pathology, molecular markers, treatment history, performance status, and evolving guidelines. We present TumorBoard, a multi-agent decision-support system built around a shared longitudinal case state and an auditable claim-evidence ledger. Specialist agents for radiology, neuropathology, molecular diagnosis, guidelines, and therapy planning produce atomic claims with provenance. An adversarial critic exposes contradictions, and a safety governor releases, qualifies, or defers recommendations according to evidence sufficiency and temporal validity. On a 360-case hidden benchmark at a matched token budget, TumorBoard achieved an action F1 of 0.772 and evidence entailment of 0.914. It exceeded the strongest typed-council baseline by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.7, adjusted p = 0.0012), while recommendation-to-evidence coverage reached 0.927. Under evidence deletion, the system deferred 84.2% of unsafe cases and limited harmful recommendations to 5.8%. The safety governor reduced harmful release by 7.8 percentage points at a false-deferral cost of 4.3 percentage points. Ablation studies of the ledger, critic, and governor produced the predicted failure patterns, establishing structured coordination as the source of the measured multi-agent advantage.

Large language models have shown promise for automated Verilog RTL generation, yet state-of-the-art multi-agent systems plateau at ~95% accuracy on standard benchmarks. We trace this ceiling to an incomplete debugging action space: existing systems restrict which signals the agent can inspect, which time windows it can query, or both, reducing debugging to pattern matching on a narrow, predetermined view of circuit behavior rather than hypothesis-driven root-cause analysis. We present VeriTrace, a multi-agent system whose Inspector agent operates over a complete debugging action space, with independent control over signal selection, time-window bounds, and iteration depth. This capability, which we term Agentic Temporal Exploration, enables the agent to form hypotheses about failure causes, query the waveform for evidence, and refine its understanding iteratively, mirroring the exploratory process of human verification engineers. VeriTrace achieves 100% Pass@1 on VerilogEval-V2, the first system to attain perfect functional correctness on this benchmark. On a shared Claude Sonnet 4.0 backbone, VeriTrace outperforms the strongest reproduced baseline by +5.1%, demonstrating that debugging agency closes the final accuracy gap.

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.

Multi-agent debate commonly exchanges complete rationales even when disagreements concern only a few intermediate claims. We introduce Localized Multi-Agent Debate (LMAD), an inference-time protocol that represents agent rationales as nodes, locates their earliest conflict, and restricts debate to the corresponding local segments. Guarded resolution extends a shared committed state so that later conflicts can be addressed without reopening accepted steps. We evaluate LMAD on four multi-hop question-answering benchmarks using ten backbones from four model families. Our method achieves the highest macro-averaged judge accuracy across all ten backbones, outperforming the strongest conventional baseline by up to 7.20 percentage points.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) explore problems through chain-of-thought, but this exploration is buried in unstructured prose. On high-stakes tasks, users cannot tell which steps are well-supported, which alternatives were seriously considered, or how the final conclusion compares to those the model discarded. We propose a framework that ensembles the reasoning structure, not just the answers, of multiple LLMs by weighted merging of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) extracted from reasoning chains. We weight each step by how many traces independently attest to it, to return "Consensus Reasoning". Across six benchmarks spanning statutory interpretation, graduate-level science, narrative multi-hop reasoning, and first-order logic, our ensemble outperforms a matched-budget majority-vote baseline, with a maximum accuracy gain of 3.1% on MuSR-MM (narrative multi-hop reasoning). On a single model, the framework matches or exceeds self-consistency at the same trace budget while additionally exposing an inspectable consensus reasoning graph. Ensemble weights correlate with LLM-judge rankings of reasoning quality at Spearman $ρ= 0.30$-$0.51$, and consensus subgraphs are preferred over alternatives leading to the majority-vote answer in 54.4-65.4% of head-to-head comparisons across five of six datasets. We observe that our framework can also be used to analyze diverse reasoning perspectives for a problem.

Existing approaches to multi-agent belief combination have established mature foundations for combining uncertain beliefs under common assumptions: consensus methods use iterative averaging, logic-based methods resolve conflicting knowledge bases, and epistemic logic analyzes agents' information states. Typically, these approaches assume that the structure determining what each agent can represent remains fixed. However, in many scenarios, agents gain or lose observational capacity during execution, and what was once admissible may become structurally impossible. This paper presents a formal framework for handling such runtime changes in epistemic partitions over continuous belief profiles. A hybrid approach exploits the advantages of answer set programming in elaboration tolerance, declarative integrity constraints, and explanations, with the numerical flexibility of Python. The framework applies to domains where agents operate at heterogeneous and possibly changing levels of resolution, and provides formal guarantees of admissibility preservation under refinement, unique mass-preserving repair under coarsening, and explanation completeness. Evaluation across 100 randomly generated topology changes confirms complete violation detection and explanation coverage.

Image restoration agents have recently emerged as a flexible paradigm for handling diverse and unpredictable degradations in real-world scenarios. Existing agents typically formulate restoration as a tool-using process, where the agent perceives degradations, searches candidate tools, executes restoration operations, and revises the plan through reflection or rollback. However, their knowledge is often stored as static tool descriptions, manually defined degradation priors, or unstructured textual summaries, which limits the accumulation, verification, revision, and forgetting of restoration knowledge over long-term experience. In this paper, we propose Causal-AgentIR, a hierarchical multi-agent framework with self-evolving causal memory for collective image restoration intelligence. Instead of representing restoration experience as isolated textual records, Causal-AgentIR organizes degradation patterns, image regions, restoration tools, actions, quality changes, and user preferences into a structured causal memory graph. This graph supports graph-based retrieval and multi-hop causal reasoning, enabling agents to infer how specific restoration operations or tool sequences affect restoration quality under different degradation conditions. The framework further organizes multiple agents into a collaborative system, including planning, degradation analysis, tool expertise, causal memory reasoning, outcome critique, and memory curation. Through this design, restoration experience can be added, updated, merged, reinforced, ignored, or discarded according to observed quality changes and feedback, allowing the agent to maintain reliable and transferable restoration knowledge. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks, they frequently struggle with complex reasoning that requires long-horizon planning and iterative error correction. Furthermore, standard single-stream prompting proves brittle when models encounter novel abstractions or rigorous domain constraints. We introduce PoTRE (Poly-Topological Reasoning Ensembles), a heterogeneous framework that decouples inference into four agents: (1) Adversarial Refinement Agent, (2) Hierarchical strategic Planning Agent, (3) Spectrum Search Agent, and (4) Direct Chain Agent. A final Task-Adaptive Aggregation Layer dynamically reconciles these perspectives -- via final candidate selection, semantic synthesis, or neuro-symbolic verification -- to produce a robust global solution. We evaluate PoTRE on three frontier benchmarks: ARC-AGI-2, Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), and PRBench Finance. PoTRE achieves state-of-the-art accuracy of 49.92% on HLE, surpassing the previous best official score. We demonstrate that this architectural heterogeneity achieves improved reasoning performance using similar or fewer inference tokens compared to heavily scaled homogeneous baselines.

Urban region profiling constitutes a core problem in urban computing, supporting applications such as population estimation, economic assessment, and environmental monitoring. Existing methods typically formulate this task as multimodal representation learning, fusing heterogeneous urban data, e.g., satellite imagery, points of interest, textual descriptions, and 3D building information, into latent embeddings for prediction. However, these approaches are largely correlation-driven, assume cross-modal consistency, and rely on static pipelines, which limit their robustness in heterogeneous or unseen urban regions. We propose UrbanAgent, an agentic framework that reframes urban region profiling as a reasoning-driven inference problem. UrbanAgent instantiates an independent agent for each data modality and performs structured multi-agent collaborative reasoning to explicitly address cross-modal inconsistencies rather than absorbing them into a single representation. In addition, UrbanAgent extends indicator prediction as a closed-loop process of active evidence acquisition and iterative reasoning, enabling agents to verify uncertain inferences through tool-augmented retrieval of external knowledge optimized via reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments on global urban datasets for Carbon emissions, GDP, and Population estimation show that UrbanAgent consistently outperforms existing baselines, achieving an average improvement of 8.1% in R2, and exhibiting strong generalization performance in unseen-city settings.

Full-proof autoformalization bridges extensive mathematical proofs in natural language with formally validated reasoning, offering a pathway to elevate the ceiling of verifiable mathematical reasoning. Unlike statement-level formalization, proof autoformalization is a long-horizon challenge requiring coordination of claims, contexts, and dependencies across many proof steps, yet has only recently come under focused study. Current approaches either rely on costly model training or apply excessive, unguided repair at inference time. To this end, we introduce ToMap, a multi-agent framework that structures proof autoformalization as a Decomposer-Formalizer-Prover pipeline with efficient test-time optimization guided by formal verification and semantic rubrics for proof quality. Rather than distributing test-time compute across all agents, we perform bottleneck analysis and identify the Decomposer as the critical bottleneck: the quality of its atomic, self-contained proof units directly determines whether downstream agents can successfully formalize and prove each step. ToMap therefore treats the Formalizer and Prover as downstream executors and efficiently focuses test-time compute on Decomposer refinement. This refinement follows a loop inspired by GEPA, evolving prompts over candidate decompositions and using formal verification progress together with semantic proof rubrics to define a Pareto frontier that guides the next decomposition update. Experiments on ProofFlowBench show that ToMap improves over the best previous method by 19.0% when evaluated by both syntactic correctness and semantic faithfulness, while requiring lower test-time cost. Scaling analysis shows that most gains emerge within a few iterations of decomposition evolution, guiding test-time budget selection.

Multi-agent ensembling multiplies active parameters and inference cost without answering three basic questions: which agents to consult, how deeply a query should traverse a hierarchy of agents, and when inter-agent communication is worth its cost. We present GRADE (Gated Routing and Adaptive Depth for Efficient Reasoning), a hierarchical multi-agent system in which four lightweight learned gates jointly govern agent selection, hierarchy depth, inter-agent communication, and branch pruning. Training uses CoGRPO (Collaborative Group-Relative Policy Optimization), a novel critic-free recipe that adapts GRPO to multi-agent hierarchies and assigns a shared advantage signal to every gate and agent that participated in a rollout. Agent models are drawn from a hot-swappable Expert Registry; per-agent calibration maps allow experts to be replaced at inference time without retraining. At $\sim$17B average active parameters, GRADE outperforms all baselines on GSM8K, MMLUPro, and GPQA, surpassing the strongest baseline by 4.8 points on MMLUPro at half the active compute. On AIME-2025, where model depth dominates, GRADE remains competitive to existing frameworks. Ablations isolate the hierarchy and masked cross-attention as the largest contributors to accuracy, and show that per-agent calibration is necessary for safe hot-swapping.

While multi-agent debate (MAD) frameworks have shown significant potential in general reasoning, their effectiveness in highly structured, knowledge-heavy legal domains remains under-explored. In this work, we introduce the Legal Multi-Agent Debate (L-MAD) framework to systematically evaluate different debate structures and aggregation methods within Legal Textual Entailment. By assigning distinct expert personas to multiple agents, L-MAD improves upon strong single-agent baselines by up to 8%. Furthermore, analyzing how debate scales reveals a clear trade-off: increasing the agent population reduces inconsistency and improves accuracy, whereas extending discussion rounds induces a detrimental over-deliberation drift where agents reinforce each other's mistakes. Ultimately, our findings outline the practical boundaries and safety margins of deploying collaborative multi-agent systems in high-stakes legal reasoning environments.

We present ARCANA, a collaborative multi agent framework for solving ARC AGI 2 tasks under strict test time and hardware constraints. ARCANA decomposes each task into iterative perception, hypothesis generation, symbolic execution, and reflective refinement. A perceptual grounding agent builds object centric scene graphs from raw grids, a latent program policy proposes diverse DSL programs, a symbolic executor verifies candidates on demonstrations, and a reflective agent synthesizes failure driven feedback for the next turn. These agents communicate through a shared differentiable blackboard and are scheduled by a learned meta controller. The design combines structured program search with adaptive multi turn correction, improving reasoning efficiency and solution quality on challenging abstract transformation tasks.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (e.g. GRPO) is the engine behind today's reasoning models, yet it grades only the final answer. On hard problems this trains models to write more rather than to think better, since the trace itself is never graded and no label for good thinking exists. We introduce Agon, which makes two competing models each other's graders. Both attempt the same problem; in alternating roles, one drafts a solution and the other reads it while solving, and each is rewarded for out-solving the other. To win, a model must out-reason a rival that has seen its work, so reasoning is judged implicitly during training, with no process labels and no reward model. Because both models are optimized, each faces a progressively stronger rival, which single-model RL cannot provide. The two need only be comparably strong and behaviorally different. At inference the pair deploys as it trains, a two-stage cascade in which one model drafts and the other answers after reading the draft. On the hard split of DeepMath with Qwen3, this doubles GRPO's pass@1, roughly eight times the gain of an untrained Mixture-of-Agents pass over the same base. The ordering replicates on competitive-programming code and across model families (Qwen3.5, Gemma 4). For now the models talk in text; the next step is to let them reason together in latent space.

Deliberation plays a crucial role in collaboration; when humans work together, they naturally engage in communication to align information and reach an agreement. In this paper, we investigate deliberative large language model (LLM) agents under partially observable joint decision-making tasks. We formalize deliberative collaboration as a cooperative joint decision problem with partial and asymmetric observations, and introduce a scalable benchmark that instantiates this problem across multiple task settings and domains in which agents must exchange information through deliberation to reach a joint decision with a shared reward. We then instantiate a reference scaffold and evaluation protocol for deliberative agents and conduct a systematic evaluation of a range of representative LLMs. The results reveal that complex deliberative collaboration tasks continue to challenge state-of-the-art language models. Even with the aid of external mathematical tools, language models may fail in either the deliberation process for aligning information or the complex reasoning process for making the decision. On the other hand, diagnostic analysis reveals that the deliberation process may also provide opportunities for reflection and error correction, sometimes improving performance over centralized baselines. Altogether, our work establishes a foundation for evaluating and improving LLM agents in deliberative collaboration and provides insights into the strengths, limitations, and properties of current LLM-based multi-agent systems.

As foundation models grow in scale and diversity, coordinating multiple models into cooperative reasoning systems offers a path toward safer, more reliable AI. This chapter presents a multi-agent framework where solver models generate independent drafts, each undergoes structured critique and revision by a critic agent, and an aggregator agent synthesizes a final consensus solution. A scoring module provides semantic, numerical, and procedural evaluation across all agents. Through ablation studies on a benchmark spanning calculus, physics, chemistry, biology, economics, optimization, statistics, and mathematics, we isolate the contributions of framework architecture versus model diversity. We compare four configurations: (1) Individual Baseline, (2) Homogeneous Framework using one shared model, (3) Redundant Homogeneous Solvers using multiple instances of the same model, and (4) Heterogeneous Framework with diverse specialized models. Results show that while framework structure and redundant sampling yield modest gains, model heterogeneity is the critical factor driving substantial performance improvements. The heterogeneous configuration achieves superior step-wise accuracy (0.64 vs. 0.54 for individual models; 2.3x improvement over homogeneous configurations) with reduced variance across categories and difficulty levels. Step-wise reasoning quality (correctness of intermediate steps, not just final answers) improves dramatically only with model diversity, showing that heterogeneous agents provide complementary error detection and reasoning refinement essential for explainability and auditability. We discuss architectural principles, evaluation methodology, and implications for Global Applied AI, showing how heterogeneous multi-agent coordination supports transparent, auditable, high-confidence decision-making across scientific and industrial domains.

We propose OptiAgent, a multi-agent framework that, given a natural language description of an Operations Research problem, is able to output a solver-ready mathematical formulation as well as executable code. Our architecture prioritizes the mathematical modeling step, where dedicated agents extract structures, such as decision variables and constraints, enabling iterative self-correction. We introduce a novel multi-loop validation architecture with four specialized feedback mechanisms, each targeting a distinct failure mode such as misinterpretation, structural defects, mathematical inconsistencies, validation failures, and code errors. Alongside accuracy, our modular design improves the process of solving optimization problems by improving transparency, as each agent exposes its reasoning and feedback, making the full modeling process auditable. Our framework achieves state-of-the-art performance on 3 out of 4 benchmarks across LP, MILP, and Nonlinear Programming tasks, while remaining highly competitive on the remaining dataset.

Improving the task performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential, yet scaling these models faces significant challenges such as diminishing returns and high costs. Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) offer a promising solution by distributing tasks among specialized agents to improve the overall task performance. This can reduce training costs at the expense of increased test time due to the discussion and decision-making process. The decision protocol is a critical component of MAS because it specifies how multiple agents collaborate to create a final solution. This thesis introduces the Multi-Agent LLM (MALLM) framework, which implements and evaluates various decision protocols, namely voting, consensus, and judge decision mechanisms, to simulate multi-agent discussions for conversational task solving. Unlike previous work that used a single decision protocol or tested them on limited datasets, this study systematically examines their impact on a diverse set of tasks, ranging from knowledge-based datasets (MMLU, MMLU-Pro, GPQA) and logic-based datasets (StrategyQA, MuSR, Math-lvl-5, SQuAD 2.0). The results indicate that consensus protocols excel in knowledge-intensive domains while voting and judge protocols are more effective for logic-based tasks. Increasing response diversity through independent solution generation improves decision quality, while changes in information access during the decision process have minimal impact.

AI reasoning has become a central focus in contemporary artificial intelligence, largely driven by the success of large language models. However, mathematical research, which is characterized by non-linear derivation paths, rigorous logical requirements, and protracted exploration cycles, poses severe challenges for existing reasoning systems. To overcome these limitations, we present the MechMath Agent Team (MMAT), which is a large language model driven agent designed to serve as a co-pilot throughout the full cycle of mathematical research. We design a tripartite Harness Architecture that decouples system responsibilities into Control, Execution, and Augmentation planes, thereby reconciling rigorous logical control with the agility demanded by open-ended research. Building upon this framework, we instantiate three specialized agents: a Knowledge Base Manager, a Natural Language Prover, and a Formal Language Prover, all operating in a closed loop to produce formally certified mathematical proofs. We evaluate MMAT on open problems in Number Theory, Algebraic Complexity Theory, Differential Algebra, Operator Algebra, and Inequalities. Across a two-month deployment, 11 problems have been solved, demonstrating its capacity to act as a co-pilot throughout the entire research cycle. The contributions are threefold: a general decoupled Harness Architecture for multi-agent mathematical reasoning, its concrete instantiation in the MMAT system, and empirical validation on a diverse suite of open problems.

Modern smart cities are interconnected cyber-physical ecosystems where heterogeneous devices exchange data and control commands. Coordinated attacks may appear as weak and distributed indicators, including low-rate scanning, abnormal credential use, protocol misuse, or delayed lateral movement, with each signal remaining below local alert thresholds. Therefore, smart-city security is not only an anomaly detection task but also a reasoning task under uncertainty, partial observability, and adversarial manipulation. This work presents TPSC-Sec, an LLM-based multi-agent approach for stable security reasoning in smart cities. TPSC-Sec decomposes analysis across specialized agents that inspect traffic behavior, protocol interactions, identity usage, and temporal attack progression. Their independent threat hypotheses are aggregated by the proposed Threat-Pheromone Swarm Consensus mechanism, which reinforces supported hypotheses, suppresses contradictions, and preserves temporal consistency, thereby driving competing interpretations toward a stable collective decision. We further introduce Adaptive Verified TPSC, which adds verification-aware calibration, context-sensitive weighting, and disagreement-adaptive control to reduce unsupported LLM outputs and reasoning inconsistency. Experiments over 500 runs show that TPSC-Sec achieves a high consensus acceptance rate of 0.97 plus or minus 0.02, hypothesis-support concentration above 0.99, a consensus margin of 2.08 plus or minus 0.21, low aggregate risk of 0.23 plus or minus 0.04, high inter-agent agreement of 0.82 plus or minus 0.06, and strong support-quality correlation of r equals 0.93. Adaptive agent selection reduces the number of active agents by 50 percent while improving system fitness by 11.6 percent. These results demonstrate robust, interpretable, and efficient security reasoning for adversary-resilient smart-city environments.

As video generation paradigms evolve from localized manipulation to full-scene synthesis, AI-generated video detection becomes increasingly challenging, as forgeries exhibit coherent global structure and high perceptual realism. However, existing benchmarks are biased toward perceptual fidelity and primarily evaluate detectors based on perceptual artifacts, providing limited coverage of scenarios that require reasoning about violations of physical laws, structural coherence, or social logic. This dataset bias shapes current approaches and results in a Perception-Reasoning Gap: artifact-centric models capture low-level statistical irregularities yet lack semantic inference, whereas vision-language models perform semantic reasoning but remain insensitive to fine-grained forensic cues. To bridge this gap, we propose SafeGuard, a multi-agent framework that enables collaborative specialization between forensic perception and semantic reasoning. A hierarchical perceptual solver extracts fine-grained forensic evidence, while a self-reflective verifier enforces consistency between semantic inference and physical plausibility, forming an interpretable evidence chain. To support evaluation, we introduce SafeVid, a novel AI-generated video detection benchmark comprising 20K videos spanning 10 social risk categories, designed to evaluate physical plausibility, structural consistency, and the rationality of social behaviors. Extensive experiments demonstrate the generalization of SafeGuard, improving accuracy on SafeVid by +18.7% and consistently outperforming prior methods across four public benchmarks.

Learning causal models from high-dimensional data is a significant challenge, particularly in real-world settings where violations of core assumptions lead to causal identifiability issues. Although massive amounts of prior knowledge are available, and contain valuable causal information, effectively integrating this knowledge into the causal discovery process remains an open problem. We introduce CausalSTeward (CAST), a novel human-in-the-loop framework for interactively assembling large causal models. CausalSteward is a multi-agent collaborative system that tackles high-dimensional causality through a divide-and-conquer approach where large clusters of variables are iteratively partitioned and then separately analyzed. Our framework fuses prior knowledge with a data-driven approach by using tailored tools such as retrieval augmented generation and conditional independence tests. Finally, we use this work to examine the capabilities and limitations of causal reasoning in multi-agent frameworks, and how the human-in-the-loop can contribute to accurate and trustworthy results.

Multi-agent systems are increasingly used for forecasting future events, as deliberation among multiple LLMs is believed to improve reasoning and calibration. Yet existing approaches overlook a critical design choice: what information each agent receives. When all agents are given identical evidence, deliberation collapses into herding rather than genuine belief revision, leaving multi-agent systems little better than a single agent. We identify this as a fundamental gap and propose designed information asymmetry to close it: by partitioning evidence into shared public and disjoint private subsets, each agent holds exclusive knowledge that can only reach others through deliberation. We theoretically show that this decomposition reduces inter-agent error correlation, and instantiate it in InfoDelphi, a framework combining relevance-aware evidence routing, rationale-based iterative deliberation, and confidence-weighted aggregation. On PolyGym, a benchmark of 375 binary forecasting questions derived from real-world prediction markets, InfoDelphi outperforms the strongest single-agent and multi-agent baselines by 12--18% in Brier score and 4--8 percentage points in accuracy. More detailed experiments confirm that removing information asymmetry eliminates most deliberation gains, establishing diversity of input as the key enabler of effective multi-agent reasoning.

Multi-agent latent reasoning composes agents' KV-caches into one context for a final agent. Prior work (Agent Primitives) does this by concatenating caches along the sequence axis with RoPE re-encoding, which we call BagMerge. BagMerge is non-commutative, and the best input ordering is unpredictable, shifting with the regime, the latent-step budget, and the model scale. We make this exchange a convergent replicated state. First, CanonicalMerge fixes the layout by content: ordering caches by mean K-norm at a middle layer renders the merged cache byte-identical under any input permutation, verified algorithmically (arity N<=5) and bit-for-bit on real Qwen3-1.7B and 4B state. Second, we separate the replicated state from decode-time layout: the state is a set of content-addressed latent fragments whose merge is set union, a state-based CvRDT (commutative, associative, idempotent, absorbing), and CanonicalMerge is its deterministic render. Because the render is byte-equivalent, every N=2 accuracy number carries over unchanged and re-delivered duplicates are absorbed rather than re-concatenated. On a partitioned-reasoning benchmark, CanonicalMerge matches the best BagMerge ordering in every regime-by-budget-by-ordering cell without knowing which order is best, trading a small, statistically insignificant accuracy margin for an unconditional structural guarantee. The behaviour transfers to real multi-document QA (HotpotQA), while the closest training-free output-fusion baseline (PackLLM) loses by 45 points at matched budget, placing cache-level merging in a regime distinct from output-level fusion. Finally, at k>2 the approach transports and colocates latent traces but does not by itself compose them, which we characterize to motivate future work.

We introduce inquisitive action logic, InqAL, a multi-agent modal logic for reasoning about action. While traditional approaches focus on what properties of the outcome an agent can force, InqAL also captures what aspects of the outcome an agent determines through their actions. As we argue, such claims of agentive determination are naturally analyzed as modal claims involving questions. Technically, InqAL is a multi-agent extension of inquisitive neighborhood logic based on concurrent game structures. With respect to statements, it is expressively equivalent to the individual-agent fragment of the socially friendly coalition logic recently proposed by Goranko and Enqvist. We present an axiomatization of InqAL and prove completeness and decidability via the finite model property. Along the way, we establish a representation theorem for actual effectivity functions, associating to an agent the sets of outcomes corresponding to their possible actions; we give exact conditions under which a multi-agent neighborhood frame arises from a concurrent game structure.

There are by now various epistemic modal logics with intersection modalities for distributed knowledge and intersection update modalities for dynamic phenomena like agents sharing (all their) information, agents receiving information from other agents, and full information protocols. One of those is the logic of Resolving Distributed Knowledge, by Agotnes and Wang. It has distributed knowledge modalities for arbitrary subsets of the set of all agents and it also has so-called resolution modalities for arbitrary subsets of agents sharing their knowledge. In that logic, the agents not involved in the knowledge sharing are aware of the agents sharing knowledge, agents are memory-less, and the kind of dynamics represents synchronous updates, where there is common awareness of the global clock. In contrast, in this contribution we present a logic for Resolving Asynchronous Distributed Knowledge. It is an asynchronous generalization of the synchronous logic of resolving distributed knowledge. The logical semantics is history-based: truth is not only with respect to a given world in a model, but also with respect to a given history of prior resolutions, of which each individual agent can only observe a part. In particular, an agent is unaware of resolutions for groups of agents not including her. As is to be expected, this comes with many technical complications, for example concerning the axiomatization. The synchronous axioms relating resolution to distributed knowledge are now invalid. The modelling advantages of such an asynchronous novel logic, for distributed computing and similar areas, are however substantial and a major asset.

Geopolitical event forecasting is a challenging task, as it requires understanding complex regional contexts, dynamic event signals, and uncertain future outcomes. Recent advances in large language model agents provide new opportunities for building forecasting systems that can reason with diverse sources and expert perspectives. In this paper, we present ForecastAgentSearch, a preliminary framework that formulates geopolitical event forecasting as a multi-expert agent search problem. Given a forecasting query, the system first analyzes the task context, then searches and ranks relevant expert agents based on their regional knowledge, domain expertise, reliability, and complementarity. The selected agents provide specialized analyses, which are further coordinated to generate a final forecast with explanations and uncertainty awareness. We discuss the key design challenges of agent profiling, expert retrieval, ranking, and multi-agent coordination, and outline possible evaluation protocols for future development. This work aims to provide an initial step toward searchable and reliable agent-based forecasting systems.