arXiv:2607. 16524v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cooperative multi-agent RL systems routinely use team-averaged rewards, a feedback-attribution choice that gives each agent the team outcome regardless of its individual contribution.
arXiv:2609. 12259v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Matrix-valued memories make rank the natural budget of a learned representation: the number of independent directions a state spans bounds what it can bind, compose, and track.
arXiv:2607. 28685v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent-safety benchmarks measure different behaviors, and their scores get quoted interchangeably as an agent's safety.
arXiv:2601.17454v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tabular studies are a common way to compare independent and centralized multi-agent learners, because they avoid function approximation. A na...
arXiv:2606. 14200v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Open platforms increasingly route tasks among heterogeneous LLM agents--differing in base model, scaffold, and tool stack--whose competence varies sharply by skill: an agent excellent at one skill may be useless at another.
The paper introduces Steiner’s taxonomy of group tasks to study how multi‑agent large language model (LLM) teams scale on disjunctive versus compensatory tasks. By modeling agents as conditionally independent given the item, it shows that plurality voting converges to the modal answer while averaging converges to the item‑level bias. Experiments with 13 open‑weight models and up to 30 agents reveal that disjunctive tasks benefit from larger teams, whereas compensatory tasks like Fermi estimation see little improvement, highlighting that task structure and aggregation method fundamentally determine team scaling.
arXiv:2608. 16190v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Trusted monitoring has a cheap, trusted model score a stronger untrusted model's actions, and a diverse ensemble of them beats a single stronger monitor at matched cost.
arXiv:2607. 17924v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent policy optimization, exemplified by PPO-based methods, is a key branch of cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL).
arXiv:2603.06859v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Credit assignment for a team of LLM agents, what each message was worth, has mostly been treated as prediction: a learned critic, a trajectory-leve...
The study investigates how multi‑harness reinforcement learning (RL) affects coding agents by comparing two grouping strategies—Within (one group per task‑harness pair) and Cross (harnesses pooled within a task)—using a Qwen3‑8B policy trained on frozen task‑harness records from Aider, OpenHands, Qwen Code, and SWE‑agent. Across 24,000 sealed evaluations, the choice of evaluation harness dramatically increases solve rates (from 2.14 % to 9.27 %), while the grouping rule has a negligible effect. Both grouping rules yield similar gains on the same source harness, and Cross‑harness credit does not improve portability beyond Within‑harness credit, suggesting that multi‑harness RL reports should specify grouping boundaries and test on unseen harnesses.
The paper investigates how many human annotators are equivalent to a panel of 32 large‑language‑model (LLM) judges. By comparing the panel’s label distributions to empirical human labels on three ChaosNLI tasks, the authors find two distinct effective panel sizes: distribution‑error matching yields effective sizes of 2.304, 3.750, and 3.445, while spectral matching gives 4.242, 6.459, and 6.499, indicating a 1.72–1.89× gap. The study also explores how spectral diversity, participation ratio, and panel composition affect effective size, and demonstrates that carefully chosen panels can outperform baseline accuracy while improving effective size.
The article examines how a difference‑in‑differences (DiD) analysis on a censored rating scale can produce misleading effects. It demonstrates that each DiD component is censored by its own share, causing differential attenuation that can fabricate an interaction effect when the two responses are unequally censored. Using a pre‑registered audit of an LLM judge, the authors show that the reported significant interaction is largely an artifact of this censoring mechanism, with the true preference effect being null.
arXiv:2606. 19111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Team science holds that leadership is contingent: it helps only under specific conditions, and capable, autonomous teams may need none at all.