The paper introduces Independent–Communicate–Revise (ICR), a framework that isolates communication effects in large language model multi‑agent systems by fixing initial reasoning and measuring how messages influence answer revision. ICR evaluates correction, preservation, and selectivity across four reasoning benchmarks, revealing that similar overall accuracy can mask divergent revision behaviors. The study shows that richer messages can both improve and harm outcomes, and that receiver policies can shift preservation and correction dynamics differently across tasks.
By Shixuan Li, Wei Yang, Peiyu Zhang, Anzhe Cheng, Heng Ping, Paul Bogdan
arXiv:2608. 14375v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent reasoning systems often use agreement, confidence, or automated scores to decide which messages should shape a final answer.
By Chih-Hsuan Yang, Anjir Ahmed Chowdhury, Cheng-Hau Yang, Weijian Zheng, Fernando Llorente, Xiaolong Ma, Xinyang Li, Eliu A. Huerta, Ian T. Foster, Rajeev Thakur
arXiv:2606. 01637v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, where they see and respond to other agents' answers.
By Jiaming Qu, Lucheng fu, Yibo Hu
arXiv:2608.25937v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Multi-agent systems (MAS) sometimes already have the potential to answer correctly, but still report a wrong answer. Explaining this outcome is dif...
By Jia-Hao Ji, Sijie Li, Jiabei Cheng, Zixi She, Jin-Tai Yu, Zhiyuan Yuan
Latent communication in large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) transmits continuous internal representations instead of text, but greater representational capacity does not establish that the receiver uses task-relevant information. End-task performance alone also cannot reveal whether an observed effect depends on message presence, content generated for the evaluated example, or information supplied by a separate agent.
arXiv:2606. 19356v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When multi-agent LLM systems produce bad answers, not all failures are equal: some answers are grounded in the right material but incomplete, while others are simply ungrounded and should be stopped.
By Anantha Sharma
arXiv:2607. 26773v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Latent communication in large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) transmits continuous internal representations instead of text, but greater representational capacity does not establish that the receiver uses task-relevant information.
By Huixiang Zhang, Mahzabeen Emu
arXiv:2606. 29026v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent AI systems can improve answer selection by allowing different language models to exchange reasoning traces, revise initial predictions, and support a final decision.
By Shahnewaz Karim Sakib, Anindya Bijoy Das
arXiv:2607. 28908v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reflection, the ability to revisit and revise prior reasoning, is central to how humans improve their answers.
By Yefan Tao, Gerald Friedland, Madhusudhanan Chandrasekaran, Luyang Kong
arXiv:2608.25920v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: As large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MASs) are increasingly applied to long-horizon complex tasks, their reliability has emerge...
By Zhongwen Luan, Xiaoyu Zhang, Ming Hu, Yue Yang, Jiongchi Yu, Xiaohong Chen
The paper introduces NetArtifactBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether AI agents can detect and repair inconsistencies in network experiment records while preserving supported claims. It tests 23 agent configurations on 52 instances with injected inconsistencies, finding an average pass rate of 65.3 % but no runtime exceeding 30 % for complex repairs that require recovering implicit relations and propagating changes across artifacts. The results highlight a clear distinction between local corrections and full record-level repair, leading the authors to argue that artifact integrity should be a primary design and evaluation criterion for AI agents in network systems.
By Tianzhu Zhang, Weichen Tao, Changgang Zheng, Yusheng Zheng, Long Chen, Xiaoyi Fan, Meikang Qiu
EDGE is a framework that attributes multiple related errors in multi-agent large language model systems by constructing an error dependency graph from observed error events. It validates a reliable causal subset through counterfactual rollout and uses this inference graph to guide a two-stage LLM-as-judge detector for error attribution. Experiments on TRAIL and MAST demonstrate that EDGE improves category-level multi-error attribution across most models and settings, and that the graph aids explanation and repair analysis.
By Jun Hou, Priya Pitre, Yi Fang, Xuan Wang