← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Shixuan Li, Wei Yang, Peiyu Zhang, Anzhe Cheng, Heng Ping, Paul Bogdan

Beyond Final Accuracy: Auditing Communication in LLM Multi-Agent Systems

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Aug 24

Why2Speak: Faithful Reasoning for Abstaining Action Policies

The paper investigates how agentic systems decide between acting and abstaining, focusing on the fidelity of their reasoning explanations. Using Qwen3‑8B in a multi‑party conversation setting, the authors compare direct decision policies, reasoning policies, supervised fine‑tuning, and reinforcement learning, finding a trade‑off: strong direct policies yield higher performance but no traceable reasoning, while reasoning policies provide an audit trail at the cost of lower recall. The study also uncovers that exposing reasoning can alter the agent’s policy and that common faithfulness metrics may overstate the alignment between reasoning and decisions.

By Shreya Mendi, Brinnae Bent
agentsreinforcement-learningfine-tuning
More like this →
arXiv AI
3d ago

When Should LLMs Trust Their Own Revisions? A Risk-Aware Study of Intrinsic Self-Correction

The paper investigates intrinsic self‑correction, where a language model revises its own answer without new evidence. Across 29 open‑weight LLMs on BoolQ, GSM8K, and Corr2Cause, the study tracks how revisions change correctness, revealing that while some models improve significantly, others lose a notable fraction of correct answers. The authors compare three runtime strategies—keeping the initial answer, always accepting the revision, and selectively gating revisions—and find that the best approach depends on the model and task, suggesting that self‑correction should be treated as a revision policy rather than a uniformly beneficial second pass.

By Tianzhu Zhang
llms
More like this →