Beyond Final Outcomes: Quantifying Claim-Level Information Dynamics in Multi-Agent LLM Interaction

arXiv cs.CL Papers
multi-agent-systems llm information-dynamics evaluation claim-analysis natural-language-processing

Summary

提出 RIVER 框架，将 LLM 多智能体交互分解为原子主张，评估收敛、探索与保留三个信息动态维度，并在 40 个新闻生成案例上比较五种交互策略的信息流动机制。

arXiv:2610.32333v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When LLM-powered agents interact, information is repeatedly shared, expanded, and forgotten, yet multi-agent evaluation typically focuses on final task outcomes. We study such interaction as claim-level information dynamics and propose RIVER, which decomposes agent outputs into atomic claims and evaluates three complementary dimensions: convergence, exploration, and retention. Convergence captures cross-agent claim correspondence and stance alignment; exploration captures semantic breadth and extension beyond the source; and retention tracks source preservation and the persistence of new claims across stages and lineages. We evaluate five interaction strategies on 40 controlled news-generation cases. Repeatedly pooled interaction promotes convergence but narrows the information space, whereas distributed relay yields broader, less shared information. Further comparisons show that method-specific constraints increase exploration while weakening convergence and retention. Our findings suggest that collective information dynamics are better explained by underlying information-flow mechanisms than by simple downstream performance.
Original Article

Similar Articles

97.2% of safety blockers stopped blocking after a multihop agent handoff (new arXiv paper). What do you pass along so a “must” stays a “must”?

Reddit r/AI_Agents

A new arXiv paper ('When Must Becomes Maybe', Sun et al.) finds that 97.2% of upstream safety blockers lose their binding force after multihop agent handoffs via compression, plan assimilation, or ownership deferral—even when permissions remain unchanged—suggesting the handoff artifact itself needs explicit constraint-preserving design.

Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra independently audit 138 economics papers, flagging 2,035 potential problems and 147 potentially headline-changing findings. A third AI attempts to verify and refute them, fueling debate over AI systematically re-examining decades of published research.

Reddit r/singularity

Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra independently audited 138 economics papers, flagging 2,035 potential problems and 147 potentially headline-changing findings, while a third AI attempted verification, sparking debate over AI systematically re-examining decades of published research.

Why "my agent burns my 7-day quota in 3 days" and "my agent ignores my style guide" are the exact same attention bug

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The author argues that two common coding-agent complaints—burning through weekly usage quotas and ignoring style guides to write defensive TypeScript—stem from one attention bug: pasting 'DON'T' code examples into prompts loads those token sequences into the KV-cache, where they act as semantic attractors and prime the model to emit exactly the banned pattern, triggering long, expensive correction loops. They propose a 4-part positive override structure for prompts and passing call-graph blast radii to subagents via Graphviz strict digraphs instead of prose or Mermaid.