arXiv:2605. 11404v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can simulate human-like reasoning and decision-making in individual agents.
arXiv:2606. 02646v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Inference-time multi-agent LLM scaling lacks a shared unit: counting nominal agents conflates cost with independent evidence.
arXiv:2608. 11215v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Simulating societies of many large language model (LLM) agents is expensive, yet the questions asked of such simulations are usually macroscopic: phase behaviour, stylised facts, and scaling with the number of agents $N$, not the cognition of any single agent.
arXiv:2607. 18310v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Synthetic-population tools increasingly run every individual as an independent large language model (LLM) agent.
The study evaluates multi‑agent debate (MAD) in small language models, testing whether cognitive diversity—via personas, sampling temperature, or model identity—drives performance gains. Across 23 models, five tasks, and over 5,500 runs, MAD consistently outperforms single‑model inference but, when matched for generation budget, it ties or falls behind self‑consistency sampling, with persona prompting actually reducing accuracy. The authors find that MAD’s benefits largely stem from the first answer exchange and that many reported gains are due to ensemble‑sampling effects rather than true diversity, highlighting the need for budget‑matched, contamination‑checked baselines. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that MAD’s perceived advantages may be overestimated and that future debate mechanisms must be evaluated against rigorous, budget‑matched baselines to ensure genuine performance improvements."
arXiv:2608. 01548v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language can be viewed as a formalized subset of thought: a consequence-governed symbolic structure projected from wider situated cognition.
arXiv:2607. 17948v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent-based models (ABMs) rely on simple, explicit and reproducible rules for individual decision making, while complex collective behavior emerges from interactions among agents.
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.
The study investigates how limited reading capacity and claim wording influence consensus outcomes in language‑model networks. By modeling message capacity as the number of messages an agent reads, the authors show that when agents read fewer than about 6.4 messages on average, a wrong consensus becomes unreachable. However, the wording of a claim—its inherent threshold—can override this effect, leading to incorrect consensus even when most agents start correct.
The paper introduces a new multi‑agent micro‑benchmark called Delay‑of‑Gratification, modeled after the Stanford marshmallow experiment, to evaluate large language models (LLMs) in long‑horizon, multi‑turn interactions. In the benchmark, ReAct agents use a per‑step “raise a question” tool under various constraints—social context (broadcast vs. isolated), persona traits (age, hedonic drive), and tool‑use policy (mandatory vs. optional). Across 19,200 trajectories, the study finds that most agents exhibit an early impulse to “eat,” only 75.9% persist to the end, and factors such as isolation and hedonic drive significantly influence survival and questioning behavior, with ablations showing that removing hedonic drive and age can improve completion rates.
arXiv:2602. 12276v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Test-time scaling has become a standard way to improve performance and boost reliability of neural network models.
arXiv:2607. 10202v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cross-model comparisons read divergence in value dispositions as evidence that language models hold individuated values.
The paper introduces SILICA, an open instrument designed to evaluate whether large language model (LLM) agent societies replicate human behavioural distributions. Using five environments with human‑anchored data and perturbations, the study finds that most LLMs only match human behaviour at initial stages, failing to reproduce end‑state cooperation or correct acceptance thresholds. The results suggest that current LLM societies can support exploratory claims but do not yet reliably emulate human social dynamics.