Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise. In LLM collectives this proxy can break: agents can produce diverse-looking arguments while preserving the same conclusion.
arXiv:2608. 03722v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise.
arXiv:2608. 03722v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise.
arXiv:2608. 04618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Heterogeneous language-model ensembles expand the space of candidate responses, yet they lack a principled criterion for when a newly generated answer should supersede an already supported one.
arXiv:2606. 00005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present the Consilium Protocol, a Byzantine Fault Tolerance-derived architecture for structured multi-model AI deliberation that treats inter-model disagreement as epistemic signal rather than error.
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
arXiv:2609.26035v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational agents often express answers in a uniformly confident register. We test whether expressed uncertainty, provenance-aware assertion, and e...
arXiv:2608. 16357v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous agents share a transport and can call each other's tools, but they cannot share what they know: no protocol lets two agents' memories reconcile a fact phrased two ways, link related facts held apart, or reconcile contradictory knowledge without silently discarding either claim.
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.
The paper introduces AgentDiff, a metric that quantifies how much LLM agents’ answers differ when inputs are altered by meaning‑bearing rewrites (paraphrases, synonym substitutions) versus presentation changes (reordering, formatting, distractors). Across 68 model–benchmark–scaffold combinations involving ten LLMs and over 1,500 questions, meaning‑bearing rewrites consistently produce a roughly 20‑percentage‑point higher inconsistency rate than presentation changes, a gap that persists across severity proxies and remains significant even outside the Qwen family. Trace analysis reveals that meaning‑bearing rewrites preserve the first action but reduce thought similarity from the second step onward, extending the divergence cascade—a phenomenon termed “stealth divergence.”
arXiv:2609.15849v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM per...
arXiv:2609.38324v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent systems of LLMs add discussion to majority voting and are therefore expected to be more capable. However, empirical reports conflict on w...
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.