Improving the Efficiency of Language Agent Teams with Adaptive Task Graphs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in teams, yet existing coordination approaches often occupy two extremes. Highly structured methods rely on fixed roles, pipelines, or task decompositions assigned a priori. In contrast, fully unstructured teams enable adaptability and exploration but suffer from inefficiencies such as error propagation, inter-agent conflicts, and wasted resources (measured in time, tokens, or file operations). We introduce Language Agent Teams for Task Evolution (LATTE), a framework for coordinating LLM teams inspired by distributed systems, where processors must operate under partial observability and communication constraints. In LATTE, a team of agents collaboratively construct and maintain a shared, evolving coordination graph which encodes sub-task dependencies, individual agent assignment, and the current state of sub-task progress. This protocol maintains consistency while empowering agents to dynamically allocate work, adapt coordination, and discover new tasks. Across multiple collaborative tasks and a variety of base models, we demonstrate how LATTE reduces token usage, wall-clock time, communication, and coordination failures (e.g. file conflicts and redundant outputs) while matching or exceeding the accuracy of standard designs including MetaGPT, decentralized teams, top-down Leader-Worker hierarchies, and static decompositions.

Do Large Language Models Mentalize When They Teach?

How do LLMs decide what to teach next: by reasoning about a learner's knowledge, or by using simpler rules of thumb? We test this in a controlled task previously used to study human teaching strategies. On each trial, a teacher LLM sees a hypothetical learner's trajectory through a reward-annotated directed graph and must reveal a single edge so the learner would choose a better path if they replanned. We run a range of LLMs as simulated teachers and fit their trial-by-trial choices with the same cognitive models used for humans: a Bayes-Optimal teacher that infers which transitions the learner is missing (inverse planning), weaker Bayesian variants, heuristic baselines (e.g., reward based), and non-mentalizing utility models. In a baseline experiment matched to the stimuli presented to human subjects, most LLMs perform well, show little change in strategy over trials, and their graph-by-graph performance is similar to that of humans. Model comparison (BIC) shows that Bayes-Optimal teaching best explains most models' choices. When given a scaffolding intervention, models follow auxiliary inference- or reward-focused prompts, but these scaffolds do not reliably improve later teaching on heuristic-incongruent test graphs and can sometimes reduce performance. Overall, cognitive model fits provide insight into LLM tutoring policies and show that prompt compliance does not guarantee better teaching decisions.

Failing to Falsify: Evaluating and Mitigating Confirmation Bias in Language Models

Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek evidence that supports rather than challenges one's belief, hinders one's reasoning ability. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit confirmation bias by adapting the rule-discovery study from human psychology: given a sequence of three numbers (a "triple"), an agent engages in an interactive feedback loop where it (1) proposes a new triple, (2) receives feedback on whether it satisfies the hidden rule, and (3) guesses the rule. Across eleven LLMs of multiple families and scales, we find that LLMs exhibit confirmation bias, often proposing triples to confirm their hypothesis rather than trying to falsify it. This leads to slower and less frequent discovery of the hidden rule. We further explore intervention strategies (e.g., encouraging the agent to consider counter examples) developed for humans. We find prompting LLMs with such instruction consistently decreases confirmation bias in LLMs, improving rule discovery rates from 42% to 56% on average. Lastly, we mitigate confirmation bias by distilling intervention-induced behavior into LLMs, showing promising generalization to a new task, the Blicket test. Our work shows that confirmation bias is a limitation of LLMs in hypothesis exploration, and that it can be mitigated via injecting interventions designed for humans.

Under the Influence: Quantifying Persuasion and Vigilance in Large Language Models

With increasing integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into areas of high-stakes human decision-making, it is important to understand the risks they introduce as advisors. To be useful advisors, LLMs must sift through large amounts of content, written with both benevolent and malicious intent, and then use this information to convince a user to take a specific action. This involves two social capacities: vigilance (the ability to determine which information to use, and which to discard) and persuasion (synthesizing the available evidence to make a convincing argument). While existing work has investigated these capacities in isolation, there has been little prior investigation of how these capacities may be linked. Here, we use a simple multi-turn puzzle-solving game, Sokoban, to study LLMs' abilities to persuade and be rationally vigilant towards other LLM agents. We find that puzzle-solving performance, persuasive capability, and vigilance are dissociable capacities in LLMs. Performing well on the game does not automatically mean a model can detect when it is being misled, even if the possibility of deception is explicitly mentioned. However, LLMs do consistently modulate their token use, using fewer tokens to reason when advice is benevolent and more when it is malicious, even if they are still persuaded to take actions leading them to failure. To our knowledge, our work presents the first investigation of the relationship between persuasion, vigilance, and task performance in LLMs, and suggests that monitoring all three independently will be critical for future work in AI safety.

Why Human Guidance Matters in Collaborative Vibe Coding

Writing code has been one of the most transformative ways for human societies to translate abstract ideas into tangible technologies. Modern AI is transforming this process by enabling experts and non-experts alike to generate code without actually writing code, but instead, through natural language instructions, or "vibe coding". While increasingly popular, the cumulative impact of vibe coding on productivity and collaboration, as well as the role of humans in this process, remains unclear. Here, we introduce a controlled experimental framework for studying collaborative vibe coding and use it to compare human-led, AI-led, and hybrid groups. Across 16 experiments involving 604 human participants, we show that people provide uniquely effective high-level instructions for vibe coding across iterations, whereas AI-provided instructions often result in performance collapse. We further demonstrate that hybrid systems perform best when humans retain directional control (providing the instructions), while evaluation is delegated to AI.

Identifying, Evaluating, and Mitigating Risks of AI Thought Partnerships

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have historically been used as tools that execute narrowly defined tasks. Yet recent advances in AI have unlocked possibilities for a new class of models that genuinely collaborate with humans in complex reasoning, from conceptualizing problems to brainstorming solutions. Such AI thought partners enable novel forms of collaboration and extended cognition, yet they also pose major risks-including and beyond risks of typical AI tools and agents. In this commentary, we systematically identify risks of AI thought partners through a novel framework that identifies risks at multiple levels of analysis, including Real-time, Individual, and Societal risks arising from collaborative cognition (RISc). We leverage this framework to propose concrete metrics for risk evaluation, and finally suggest specific mitigation strategies for developers and policymakers. As AI thought partners continue to proliferate, these strategies can help prevent major harms and ensure that humans actively benefit from productive thought partnerships.

Using the Tools of Cognitive Science to Understand Large Language Models at Different Levels of Analysis

Modern artificial intelligence systems, such as large language models, are increasingly powerful but also increasingly hard to understand. Recognizing this problem as analogous to the historical difficulties in understanding the human mind, we argue that methods developed in cognitive science can be useful for understanding large language models. We propose a framework for applying these methods based on Marr's three levels of analysis. By revisiting established cognitive science techniques relevant to each level and illustrating their potential to yield insights into the behavior and internal organization of large language models, we aim to provide a toolkit for making sense of these new kinds of minds.

When Should We Orchestrate Multiple Agents?

Strategies for orchestrating the interactions between multiple agents, both human and artificial, can wildly overestimate performance and underestimate the cost of orchestration. We design a framework to orchestrate agents under realistic conditions, such as inference costs or availability constraints. We show theoretically that orchestration is only effective if there are performance or cost differentials between agents. We then empirically demonstrate how orchestration between multiple agents can be helpful for selecting agents in a simulated environment, picking a learning strategy in the infamous Rogers' Paradox from social science, and outsourcing tasks to other agents during a question-answer task in a user study.

On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines

Recent benchmark studies have claimed that AI has approached or even surpassed human-level performances on various cognitive tasks. However, this position paper argues that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities. We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks. We support our claims by conducting a human evaluation study on ten existing AI benchmarks, suggesting significant biases and flaws in task and label designs. To address these limitations, we propose five concrete recommendations for developing future benchmarks that will enable more rigorous and meaningful evaluations of human-like cognitive capacities in AI with various implications for such AI applications.

What is a Number, That a Large Language Model May Know It?

Numbers are a basic part of how humans represent and describe the world around them. As a consequence, learning effective representations of numbers is critical for the success of large language models as they become more integrated into everyday decisions. However, these models face a challenge: depending on context, the same sequence of digit tokens, e.g., 911, can be treated as a number or as a string. What kind of representations arise from this duality, and what are its downstream implications? Using a similarity-based prompting technique from cognitive science, we show that LLMs learn representational spaces that blend string-like and numerical representations. In particular, we show that elicited similarity judgments from these models over integer pairs can be captured by a combination of Levenshtein edit distance and numerical Log-Linear distance, suggesting an entangled representation. In a series of experiments we show how this entanglement is reflected in the latent embeddings, how it can be reduced but not entirely eliminated by context, and how it can propagate into a realistic decision scenario. These results shed light on a representational tension in transformer models that must learn what a number is from text input.