arXiv:2608. 03722v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise.
By Molood Arman
Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise. In LLM collectives this proxy can break: agents can produce diverse-looking arguments while preserving the same conclusion.
arXiv:2608. 04618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Heterogeneous language-model ensembles expand the space of candidate responses, yet they lack a principled criterion for when a newly generated answer should supersede an already supported one.
By Ruitong Li, Binjie Guo, Aisheng Mo, Guowei Su, Jie Li, Ru Zhang
The paper introduces AgentDiff, a metric that quantifies how much LLM agents’ answers differ when inputs are altered by meaning‑bearing rewrites (paraphrases, synonym substitutions) versus presentation changes (reordering, formatting, distractors). Across 68 model–benchmark–scaffold combinations involving ten LLMs and over 1,500 questions, meaning‑bearing rewrites consistently produce a roughly 20‑percentage‑point higher inconsistency rate than presentation changes, a gap that persists across severity proxies and remains significant even outside the Qwen family. Trace analysis reveals that meaning‑bearing rewrites preserve the first action but reduce thought similarity from the second step onward, extending the divergence cascade—a phenomenon termed “stealth divergence.”
By Liyun Zhang, Jiayi Guo
arXiv:2606. 00005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present the Consilium Protocol, a Byzantine Fault Tolerance-derived architecture for structured multi-model AI deliberation that treats inter-model disagreement as epistemic signal rather than error.
By VD Doske
The paper introduces the concept of an epistemic Sybil problem in multi‑agent AI systems, where multiple agents may produce seemingly independent reports that actually stem from the same underlying evidence. It formalizes this issue using information‑theoretic measures and demonstrates through large‑scale experiments that naive aggregation of replicated reports can severely degrade inference accuracy unless the system accounts for shared evidence ancestry and correlated extraction errors. The study shows that aggregators that track evidential dependence rather than merely report multiplicity or similarity achieve better calibration and inference performance.
By Marc Bara