arXiv:2608. 14375v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent reasoning systems often use agreement, confidence, or automated scores to decide which messages should shape a final answer.
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.
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.
arXiv:2609.36855v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems rely on message passing among specialized agents to accomplish complex tasks. However, an upstream agent may provide useful inf...
arXiv:2608.25937v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent systems (MAS) sometimes already have the potential to answer correctly, but still report a wrong answer. Explaining this outcome is dif...
arXiv:2607. 28908v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reflection, the ability to revisit and revise prior reasoning, is central to how humans improve their answers.
The paper argues that evaluating agents as fixed models is insufficient, proposing instead to treat them as configurable systems. Using a new benchmark of four scientific tasks, the authors analyze how five configuration aspects—task information, reasoning, self‑verification, time budget, and backbone model—affect performance, noting that about 54% of outcome variance arises from run‑to‑run differences even with the same settings. The study finds that providing more task information has the strongest impact, while interactions among settings (e.g., extra time only helps with adequate information or model capability) and the choice of verification tools significantly shape agent behavior.
arXiv:2608. 02011v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems can fail before evidence-conditioned reasoning is tested: an agent may retrieve candidate snippets but finalize without inspecting them.