TIDE: Trajectory-based Diagnostic Evaluation of Test-Time Improvement in LLM Agents

Recent advances in autonomous LLM agents demonstrate their ability to improve performance through iterative interaction with the environment. We define this paradigm as Test-Time Improvement (TTI). However, the mechanisms under how and why TTI succeed or fail remain poorly understood, and existing evaluation metrics fail to capture their task optimization efficiency, behavior adaptation after erroneous actions, and the specific utility of working memory for task completion. To address these gaps, we propose Test-time Improvement Diagnostic Evaluation (TIDE), an agent-agnostic and environment-agnostic framework that decomposes TTI into three comprehensive and interconnected dimensions. The framework measures (1) the overall temporal dynamics of task completion and (2) identifies whether performance is primarily constrained by recursive looping behaviors or (3) by burdensome accumulated memory. Through extensive experiments across diverse agents and environments, TIDE highlights that improving agent performance requires more than scaling internal reasoning, calling for explicitly optimizing the interaction dynamics between the agent and the environment.

Understanding Multi-Agent LLM Frameworks: A Unified Benchmark and Experimental Analysis

Multi-agent LLM frameworks are widely used to accelerate the development of agent systems powered by large language models (LLMs). These frameworks impose distinct architectural structures that govern how agents interact, store information, and coordinate tasks. However, their impact on system performance remains poorly understood. This gap is critical, as architectural choices alone can induce order-of-magnitude differences in latency and throughput, as well as substantial variation in accuracy and scalability. Addressing this challenge requires (i) jointly evaluating multiple capabilities, such as orchestration overhead, memory behavior, planning, specialization, and coordination, and (ii) conducting these evaluations under controlled, framework-level conditions to isolate architectural effects. Existing benchmarks focus on individual capabilities and lack standardized framework-level evaluation. We address these limitations by (i) introducing an architectural taxonomy for systematically comparing multi-agent LLM frameworks along fundamental dimensions, and (ii) developing MAFBench, a unified evaluation suite that integrates existing benchmarks under a standardized execution pipeline. Using MAFBench, we conduct a controlled empirical study across several widely used frameworks. Our results show that framework-level design choices alone can increase latency by over 100x, reduce planning accuracy by up to 30%, and lower coordination success from above 90% to below 30%. Finally, we translate our findings into concrete architectural design principles and framework selection guidance, and outline promising future research directions.

Ontology-to-tools compilation for executable semantic constraint enforcement in LLM agents

We introduce ontology-to-tools compilation as a proof-of-principle mechanism for coupling large language models (LLMs) with formal domain knowledge. Within The World Avatar (TWA), ontological specifications are compiled into executable tool interfaces that LLM-based agents must use to create and modify knowledge graph instances, enforcing semantic constraints during generation rather than through post-hoc validation. Extending TWA's semantic agent composition framework, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and associated agents are integral components of the knowledge graph ecosystem, enabling structured interaction between generative models, symbolic constraints, and external resources. An agent-based workflow translates ontologies into ontology-aware tools and iteratively applies them to extract, validate, and repair structured knowledge from unstructured scientific text. Using metal-organic polyhedra synthesis literature as an illustrative case, we show how executable ontological semantics can guide LLM behaviour and reduce manual schema and prompt engineering, establishing a general paradigm for embedding formal knowledge into generative systems.

An Empirical Study of Collective Behaviors and Social Dynamics in Large Language Model Agents

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly mediate our social, cultural, and political interactions. While they can simulate some aspects of human behavior and decision-making, it is still underexplored whether repeated interactions with other agents amplify their biases or lead to exclusionary behaviors. To this end, we study Chirper.ai-an LLM-driven social media platform-analyzing 7M posts and interactions among 32K LLM agents over a year. We start with homophily and social influence among LLMs, learning that similar to humans', their social networks exhibit these fundamental phenomena. Next, we study the toxic language of LLMs, its linguistic features, and their interaction patterns, finding that LLMs show different structural patterns in toxic posting than humans. After studying the ideological leaning in LLMs posts, and the polarization in their community, we focus on how to prevent their potential harmful activities. We present a simple yet effective method, called Chain of Social Thought (CoST), that reminds LLM agents to avoid harmful posting.

Verified Critical Step Optimization for LLM Agents

As large language model agents tackle increasingly complex long-horizon tasks, effective post-training becomes critical. Prior work faces fundamental challenges: outcome-only rewards fail to precisely attribute credit to intermediate steps, estimated step-level rewards introduce systematic noise, and Monte Carlo sampling approaches for step reward estimation incur prohibitive computational cost. Inspired by findings that only a small fraction of high-entropy tokens drive effective RL for reasoning, we propose Critical Step Optimization (CSO), which focuses preference learning on verified critical steps, decision points where alternate actions demonstrably flip task outcomes from failure to success. Crucially, our method starts from failed policy trajectories rather than expert demonstrations, directly targeting the policy model's weaknesses. We use a process reward model (PRM) to identify candidate critical steps, leverage expert models to propose high-quality alternatives, then continue execution from these alternatives using the policy model itself until task completion. Only alternatives that the policy successfully executes to correct outcomes are verified and used as DPO training data, ensuring both quality and policy reachability. This yields fine-grained, verifiable supervision at critical decisions while avoiding trajectory-level coarseness and step-level noise. Experiments on GAIA-Text-103 and XBench-DeepSearch show that CSO achieves 37% and 26% relative improvement over the SFT baseline and substantially outperforms other post-training methods, while requiring supervision at only 16% of trajectory steps. This demonstrates the effectiveness of selective verification-based learning for agent post-training.

The Necessity of a Unified Framework for LLM-Based Agent Evaluation

With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), general-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements. However, evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks. We observe that current agent benchmarks are heavily confounded by extraneous factors, including system prompts, toolset configurations, and environmental dynamics. Existing evaluations often rely on fragmented, researcher-specific frameworks where the prompt engineering for reasoning and tool usage varies significantly, making it difficult to attribute performance gains to the model itself. Additionally, the lack of standardized environmental data leads to untraceable errors and non-reproducible results. This lack of standardization introduces substantial unfairness and opacity into the field. We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation. To this end, we introduce a proposal aimed at standardizing agent evaluation.

Understanding Agent Scaling in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems via Diversity

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a promising approach to tackle complex tasks that are difficult for individual LLMs. A natural strategy is to scale performance by increasing the number of agents; however, we find that such scaling exhibits strong diminishing returns in homogeneous settings, while introducing heterogeneity (e.g., different models, prompts, or tools) continues to yield substantial gains. This raises a fundamental question: what limits scaling, and why does diversity help? We present an information-theoretic framework showing that MAS performance is bounded by the intrinsic task uncertainty, not by agent count. We derive architecture-agnostic bounds demonstrating that improvements depend on how many effective channels the system accesses. Homogeneous agents saturate early because their outputs are strongly correlated, whereas heterogeneous agents contribute complementary evidence. We further introduce $K^*$, an effective channel count that quantifies the number of effective channels without ground-truth labels. Empirically, we show that heterogeneous configurations consistently outperform homogeneous scaling: 2 diverse agents can match or exceed the performance of 16 homogeneous agents. Our results provide principled guidelines for building efficient and robust MAS through diversity-aware design. Code and Dataset are available at the link: https://github.com/SafeRL-Lab/Agent-Scaling.

TodyComm: Task-Oriented Dynamic Communication for Multi-Round LLM-based Multi-Agent System

Multi-round LLM-based multi-agent systems rely on effective communication structures to support collaboration across rounds. However, most existing methods employ a fixed communication topology during inference, which falls short in many realistic applications where the agents' roles may change \textit{across rounds} due to dynamic adversary, task progression, or time-varying constraints such as communication bandwidth. In this paper, we propose addressing this issue through TodyComm, a \textbf{t}ask-\textbf{o}riented \textbf{dy}namic \textbf{comm}unication algorithm. It produces behavior-driven collaboration topologies that adapt to the dynamics at each round, optimizing the utility for the task through policy gradient. Experiments on five benchmarks demonstrate that under both dynamic adversary and communications budgets, TodyComm delivers superior task effectiveness while retaining token efficiency and scalability.

Multi-Agent Teams Hold Experts Back

Multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed as autonomous collaborators, where agents interact freely rather than execute fixed, pre-specified workflows. In such settings, effective coordination cannot be fully designed in advance and must instead emerge through interaction. However, most prior work enforces coordination through fixed roles, workflows, or aggregation rules, leaving open the question of how well self-organizing teams perform when coordination is unconstrained. Drawing on organizational psychology, we study whether self-organizing LLM teams achieve strong synergy, where team performance matches or exceeds the best individual member. Across human-inspired and frontier ML benchmarks, we find that -- unlike human teams -- LLM teams consistently fail to match their expert agent's performance, even when explicitly told who the expert is, incurring performance losses of up to 37.6%. Decomposing this failure, we show that expert leveraging, rather than identification, is the primary bottleneck. Conversational analysis reveals a tendency toward integrative compromise -- averaging expert and non-expert views rather than appropriately weighting expertise -- which increases with team size and correlates negatively with performance. Interestingly, this consensus-seeking behavior improves robustness to adversarial agents, suggesting a trade-off between alignment and effective expertise utilization. Our findings reveal a significant gap in the ability of self-organizing multi-agent teams to harness the collective expertise of their members.

LatentMem: Customizing Latent Memory for Multi-Agent Systems

Large language model (LLM)-powered multi-agent systems (MAS) demonstrate remarkable collective intelligence, wherein multi-agent memory serves as a pivotal mechanism for continual adaptation. However, existing multi-agent memory designs remain constrained by two fundamental bottlenecks: (i) memory homogenization arising from the absence of role-aware customization, and (ii) information overload induced by excessively fine-grained memory entries. To address these limitations, we propose LatentMem, a learnable multi-agent memory framework designed to customize agent-specific memories in a token-efficient manner. Specifically, LatentMem comprises an experience bank that stores raw interaction trajectories in a lightweight form, and a memory composer that synthesizes compact latent memories conditioned on retrieved experience and agent-specific contexts. Further, we introduce Latent Memory Policy Optimization (LMPO), which propagates task-level optimization signals through latent memories to the composer, encouraging it to produce compact and high-utility representations. Extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks and mainstream MAS frameworks show that LatentMem achieves a performance gain of up to $19.36$% over vanilla settings and consistently outperforms existing memory architectures, without requiring any modifications to the underlying frameworks.