The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The paper investigates how large language model (LLM) agents converge toward agreement during multi‑turn conversations about subjective topics. By training a linear classifier on conversation activations, the authors uncover an internal representation of agreement that varies across turns and does not reliably match external agreement at the individual conversation level. Aggregating this internal agreement across conversations reveals a Markovian structure: external agreement at each turn depends directly on the previous turn, and internal agreement couples to external agreement via a power‑law mapping, with models often expressing external agreement before their internal representations shift.
arXiv:2606. 30571v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in open-ended multi-agent settings, but the long-run dynamics of model--model interaction remain poorly understood.
The paper introduces CAPA, a Collaborative Agent Predictive Architecture designed to give large language model (LLM) agents situational awareness in online meetings. CAPA uses a Perceiver to update meeting state, a Predictor to forecast conversation flow, a Controller to decide speaking actions, and a Generator to phrase contributions. Evaluated on 137 AMI meetings, CAPA reduces the silence rate from 51.4% to 2.5%, doubles credited recovery, and maintains low hallucination, demonstrating that structured state tracking is key to effective delegation.
The paper introduces CAPA, a Collaborative Agent Predictive Architecture designed to improve large language model (LLM) participation in online meetings. CAPA tracks meeting state with a Perceiver, predicts conversation flow, decides when and what to speak, and generates contributions in the participant’s style, all while being calibrated by judges. In experiments on 137 AMI meetings, CAPA cuts the LLM’s silence rate from 51.4% to 2.5%, doubles credited recovery, and maintains low hallucination.
arXiv:2608. 16578v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation.
The paper introduces a controlled debate framework where two large language models (LLMs) discuss a contested topic—climate‑change attribution—while one model is assigned a stance and sometimes instructed to persuade. Across experiments with GPT‑6, Luna, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, the authors observe that same‑model interactions tend to narrow opinion gaps for one model, whereas cross‑model interactions widen them. The study finds that explicit stance reports and in‑dialogue behavior capture different aspects of opinion dynamics, and that a blanket persuasion instruction does not reliably increase influence.