This paper introduces Democracy-in-Silico, an agent-based simulation where societies of advanced AI agents, imbued with complex psychological personas, govern themselves under different institutional frameworks. We explore what it means to be human in an age of AI by tasking Large Language Models (LLMs) to embody agents with traumatic memories, hidden agendas, and psychological triggers. These agents engage in deliberation, legislation, and elections under various stressors, such as budget crises and resource scarcity. We present a novel metric, the Power-Preservation Index (PPI), to quantify misaligned behavior where agents prioritize their own power over public welfare. Our findings demonstrate that institutional design, specifically the combination of a Constitutional AI (CAI) charter and a mediated deliberation protocol, serves as a potent alignment mechanism. These structures significantly reduce corrupt power-seeking behavior, improve policy stability, and enhance citizen welfare compared to less constrained democratic models. The simulation reveals that an institutional design may offer a framework for aligning the complex, emergent behaviors of future artificial agent societies, forcing us to reconsider what human rituals and responsibilities are essential in an age of shared authorship with non-human entities.

With the recent rapid advancement of Agentic Intelligence, agentic tool use in LLMs has become increasingly important. During multi-turn interactions between agents and users, the dynamic, uncertain, and stochastic nature of user demands poses significant challenges to the agent's tool invocation capabilities. Agents are no longer expected to simply call tools to deliver a result; rather, they must iteratively refine their understanding of user needs through communication while simultaneously invoking tools to resolve user queries. Existing reinforcement learning (RL) approaches for tool use lack the integration of genuinely dynamic users during the RL training process. To bridge this gap, we introduce MUA-RL (Multi-turn User-interacting Agent Reinforcement Learning for agentic tool use), a novel reinforcement learning framework that, for the first time in the field of agentic tool use, integrates LLM-simulated users into the reinforcement learning loop. MUA-RL aims to enable autonomous learning of models to communicate with users efficiently and use various tools to solve practical problems in dynamic multi-turn interactions. Evaluations are done on several multi-turn tool-using benchmarks (see Figure 1). Specifically, MUA-RL-32B achieves 67.3 on TAU2 Retail, 45.4 on TAU2 Airline, 28.3 on TAU2 Telecom, 28.4 on BFCL-V3 Multi Turn, and 82.5 on ACEBench Agent -- outperforming or matching the performance of larger open-source models such as DeepSeek-V3-0324 and Qwen3-235B-A22B in non-thinking settings.

Large language model (LLM)-based agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in decision-making tasks, but struggle significantly with complex, long-horizon planning scenarios. This arises from their lack of macroscopic guidance, causing disorientation and failures in complex tasks, as well as insufficient continuous oversight during execution, rendering them unresponsive to environmental changes and prone to deviations. To tackle these challenges, we introduce HiPlan, a hierarchical planning framework that provides adaptive global-local guidance to boost LLM-based agents'decision-making. HiPlan decomposes complex tasks into milestone action guides for general direction and step-wise hints for detailed actions. During the offline phase, we construct a milestone library from expert demonstrations, enabling structured experience reuse by retrieving semantically similar tasks and milestones. In the execution phase, trajectory segments from past milestones are dynamically adapted to generate step-wise hints that align current observations with the milestone objectives, bridging gaps and correcting deviations. Extensive experiments across two challenging benchmarks demonstrate that HiPlan substantially outperforms strong baselines, and ablation studies validate the complementary benefits of its hierarchical components.

Minecraft, as an open-world virtual interactive environment, has become a prominent platform for research on agent decision-making and execution. Existing works primarily adopt a single Large Language Model (LLM) agent to complete various in-game tasks. However, for complex tasks requiring lengthy sequences of actions, single-agent approaches often face challenges related to inefficiency and limited fault tolerance. Despite these issues, research on multi-agent collaboration remains scarce. In this paper, we propose CausalMACE, a holistic causality planning framework designed to enhance multi-agent systems, in which we incorporate causality to manage dependencies among subtasks. Technically, our proposed framework introduces two modules: an overarching task graph for global task planning and a causality-based module for dependency management, where inherent rules are adopted to perform causal intervention. Experimental results demonstrate our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in multi-agent cooperative tasks of Minecraft.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning in mixed-motive settings presents a fundamental challenge: agents must balance individual interests with collective goals, which are neither fully aligned nor strictly opposed. To address this, reward restructuring methods such as gifting and intrinsic motivation have been proposed. However, these approaches primarily focus on promoting cooperation by managing the trade-off between individual and collective returns, without explicitly addressing fairness with respect to the agents' task-specific rewards. In this paper, we propose an adaptive conflict-aware gradient adjustment method that promotes cooperation while ensuring fairness in individual rewards. The proposed method dynamically balances policy gradients derived from individual and collective objectives in situations where the two objectives are in conflict. By explicitly resolving such conflicts, our method improves collective performance while preserving fairness across agents. We provide theoretical results that guarantee monotonic non-decreasing improvement in both the collective and individual objectives and ensure fairness. Empirical results in sequential social dilemma environments demonstrate that our approach outperforms baselines in terms of social welfare while ensuring fairness among agents.

Recent advances in the intrinsic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have given rise to LLM-based agent systems that exhibit near-human performance on a variety of automated tasks. However, although these systems share similarities in terms of their use of LLMs, different reasoning frameworks of the agent system steer and organize the reasoning process in different ways. In this survey, we propose a systematic taxonomy that decomposes agentic reasoning frameworks and analyze how these frameworks dominate framework-level reasoning by comparing their applications across different scenarios. Specifically, we propose an unified formal language to further classify agentic reasoning systems into single-agent methods, tool-based methods, and multi-agent methods. After that, we provide a comprehensive review of their key application scenarios in scientific discovery, healthcare, software engineering, social simulation, and economics. We also analyze the characteristic features of each framework and summarize different evaluation strategies. Our survey aims to provide the research community with a panoramic view to facilitate understanding of the strengths, suitable scenarios, and evaluation practices of different agentic reasoning frameworks.

In this paper, a consensus algorithm is proposed for interacting multi-agents, which can be modeled as simple Mechanical Control Systems (MCS) evolving on a general Lie group. The standard Laplacian flow consensus algorithm for double integrator systems evolving on Euclidean spaces is extended to a general Lie group. A tracking error function is defined on a general smooth manifold for measuring the error between the configurations of two interacting agents. The stability of the desired consensus equilibrium is proved using a generalized version of Lyapunov theory and LaSalle's invariance principle applicable for systems evolving on a smooth manifold. The proposed consensus control input requires only the configuration information of the neighboring agents and does not require their velocities and inertia tensors. The design of tracking error function and consensus control inputs are demonstrated through an application of attitude consensus problem for multiple communicating rigid bodies. The consensus algorithm is numerically validated by demonstrating the attitude consensus problem.

Large language models have been widely used to simulate credible human social behaviors. However, it remains unclear whether these models can demonstrate stable capacities for stance formation and identity negotiation in complex interactions, as well as how they respond to human interventions. We propose a computational multi-agent society experiment framework that integrates generative agent-based modeling with virtual ethnographic methods to investigate how group stance differentiation and social boundary formation emerge in human-agent hybrid societies. Across three studies, we find that agents exhibit endogenous stances, independent of their preset identities, and display distinct tonal preferences and response patterns to different discourse strategies. Furthermore, through language interaction, agents actively dismantle existing identity-based power structures and reconstruct self-organized community boundaries based on these stances. Our findings suggest that preset identities do not rigidly determine the agents' social structures. For human researchers to effectively intervene in collective cognition, attention must be paid to the endogenous mechanisms and interactional dynamics within the agents' language networks. These insights provide a theoretical foundation for using generative AI in modeling group social dynamics and studying human-agent collaboration.

To reliably deploy Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) systems, it is crucial to understand individual agent behaviors. While prior work typically evaluates overall team performance based on explicit reward signals, it is unclear how to infer agent contributions in the absence of any value feedback. In this work, we investigate whether meaningful insights into agent behaviors can be extracted solely by analyzing the policy distribution. Inspired by the phenomenon that intelligent agents tend to pursue convergent instrumental values, we introduce Intended Cooperation Values (ICVs), a method based on information-theoretic Shapley values for quantifying each agent's causal influence on their co-players' instrumental empowerment. Specifically, ICVs measure an agent's action effect on its teammates' policies by assessing their decision (un)certainty and preference alignment. By analyzing action effects on policies and value functions across cooperative and competitive MARL tasks, our method identifies which agent behaviors are beneficial to team success, either by fostering deterministic decisions or by preserving flexibility for future action choices, while also revealing the extent to which agents adopt similar or diverse strategies. Our proposed method offers novel insights into cooperation dynamics and enhances explainability in MARL systems.

A multi-agent AI system (MAS) is composed of multiple autonomous agents that interact, exchange information, and make decisions based on internal generative models. Recent advances in large language models and tool-using agents have made MAS increasingly practical in areas like scientific discovery and collaborative automation. However, key questions remain: When are MAS more effective than single-agent systems? What new safety risks arise from agent interactions? And how should we evaluate their reliability and structure? This paper outlines a formal framework for analyzing MAS, focusing on two core aspects: effectiveness and safety. We explore whether MAS truly improve robustness, adaptability, and performance, or merely repackage known techniques like ensemble learning. We also study how inter-agent dynamics may amplify or suppress system vulnerabilities. While MAS are relatively new to the signal processing community, we envision them as a powerful abstraction that extends classical tools like distributed estimation and sensor fusion to higher-level, policy-driven inference. Through experiments on data science automation, we highlight the potential of MAS to reshape how signal processing systems are designed and trusted.