arXiv:2610.19215v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as teams of agents that hold different private information about a shared task. How should such agents...
By Mirah Shi, Marcel Hussing, Ira Globus-Harris, Natalie Collina, Aaron Roth, Surbhi Goel
arXiv:2606. 01828v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model-driven multi-agent systems enhance the reliability of complex reasoning tasks through multi-round deliberation, role specialization, and cross-validation.
By Wanshuang Gou, Zihan Liu
arXiv:2607. 09330v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embodied agent teams powered by heterogeneous large language models (LLMs) are being widely deployed in physical artificial intelligence such as smart factories, warehouses, and service robotics.
By Nuocheng Yang, Sihua Wang, Zihan Chen, Tony Q. S. Quek, Changchuan Yin
Large language model-driven multi-agent systems enhance the reliability of complex reasoning tasks through multi-round deliberation, role specialization, and cross-validation. However, existing multi-agent debate and collaboration frameworks typically adopt fully connected communication, causing the number of messages, token costs, and end-to-end latency to grow approximately quadratically with the number of agents; although fixed sparse topologies reduce overhead, they cannot adapt communication relationships to different task instances or intermediate reasoning states, making them prone either to preserving low-value interactions or to losing critical error-correction information.
arXiv:2610.17869v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems typically commit to a deliberation protocol before inference. A fixed protocol cannot allocate computati...
By Yuan Liu, Haoyue Peng, Fanliang Hu, Lei Huang, Wenli Cai
ECMR: Evidence-Aware Deliberation Control for Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning proposes a controller that dynamically manages deliberation steps in multi-agent LLM systems. The controller evaluates answer concentration, support diversity, contradictions, role behavior, verification history, and remaining budget to decide actions such as propose, challenge, verify, arbitrate, diversify, correct, or stop. In a held‑out evaluation on MedQA, CaseHOLD, and FinQA, ECMR‑Full improves pooled accuracy from 62.1% to 84.9%, lowers false‑consensus from 40.7% to 17.0%, and raises evidence‑support from 58.0% to 88.7%.