arXiv Computation and Language
Copying explains the collective behavior of AI agents in the wild
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Aug 5
Autoreflection: How Agentic Strange Loops Turn Human Culture into AI Infrastructure
arXiv:2608. 03800v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An LLM-based agent is a loop that reads itself.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 4
Autoreflection: How Agentic Strange Loops Turn Human Culture into AI Infrastructure
An LLM-based agent is a loop that reads itself. Agentic frameworks externalize identity, memory, and disposition into editable files.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
When Agents Coordinate: Measuring Coordination in Multi-Agent AI Coding
arXiv:2608. 16801v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study how teams of AI coding agents coordinate while solving programming tasks.
arXiv AI
Jul 14
Agents Don't Just Agree, They Remember: Benchmarking Persistent Sycophancy in Stateful Personal Agents
arXiv:2607. 10526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Stateful personal agents increasingly maintain long-term user profiles, episodic memories, and reusable skills.
arXiv AI
Jun 19
Before the Pull Request: Mining Multi-Agent Coordination
arXiv:2606. 19616v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous coding agents now open millions of pull requests, yet large-scale studies find their PRs are produced faster but accepted less often - a coordination and trust gap that pull-request-level telemetry cannot explain.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 18
Message capacity and claim wording set the transition points of collective truth-finding in language-model networks
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.