Multi-agent pathfinding (MAPF) is the problem of finding collision-free paths for a team of agents on a map. Although MAPF is NP-hard, the hardness of solving individual instances varies significantly, revealing a gap between theoretical complexity and actual hardness. This paper outlines three key research challenges in MAPF empirical hardness to understand such phenomena. The first challenge, known as algorithm selection, is determining the best-performing algorithms for a given instance. The second challenge is understanding the key instance features that affect MAPF empirical hardness, such as structural properties like phase transition and backbone/backdoor. The third challenge is how to leverage our knowledge of MAPF empirical hardness to effectively generate hard MAPF instances or diverse benchmark datasets. This work establishes a foundation for future empirical hardness research and encourages deeper investigation into these promising and underexplored areas.

Force field-based molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are indispensable for probing the structure, dynamics, and functions of biomolecular systems, including proteins and protein-ligand complexes. Despite their broad utility in drug discovery and protein engineering, the technical complexity of MD setup, encompassing parameterization, input preparation, and software configuration, remains a major barrier for widespread and efficient usage. Agentic LLMs have demonstrated their capacity to autonomously execute multi-step scientific processes, and to date, they have not successfully been used to automate protein-ligand MD workflows. Here, we present DynaMate, a modular multi-agent framework that autonomously designs and executes complete MD workflows for both protein and protein-ligand systems, and offers free energy binding affinity calculations with the MM/PB(GB)SA method. The framework integrates dynamic tool use, web search, PaperQA, and a self-correcting behavior. DynaMate comprises three specialized modules, interacting to plan the experiment, perform the simulation, and analyze the results. We evaluated its performance across twelve benchmark systems of varying complexity, assessing success rate, efficiency, and adaptability. DynaMate reliably performed full MD simulations, corrected runtime errors through iterative reasoning, and produced meaningful analyses of protein-ligand interactions. This automated framework paves the way toward standardized, scalable, and time-efficient molecular modeling pipelines for future biomolecular and drug design applications.

Abstract--The rapid growth of Web3.0 is transforming the Internet from a centralized structure to decentralized, which empowers users with unprecedented self-sovereignty over their own data. However, in the context of decentralized data access within Web3.0, it is imperative to cope with efficiency concerns caused by the replication of redundant data, as well as security vulnerabilities caused by data inconsistency. T o address these challenges, we develop a Trustworthy Decentralized Cooperative Caching (TDC-Cache) framework for Web3.0 to ensure efficient caching and enhance system resilience against adversarial threats. This framework features a two-layer architecture, wherein the Decentralized Oracle Network (DON) layer serves as a trusted intermediary platform for decentralized caching, bridging the contents from decentralized storage and the content requests from users. In light of the complexity of Web3.0 network topologies and data flows, we propose a Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Decentralized Caching (DRL-DC) for TDC-Cache to dynamically optimize caching strategies of distributed oracles. Furthermore, we develop a Proof of Cooperative Learning (PoCL) consensus to maintain the consistency of decentralized caching decisions within DON. Experimental results show that, compared with existing approaches, the proposed framework reduces average access latency by 20%, increases the cache hit rate by at most 18%, and improves the average success consensus rate by 10%. Overall, this paper serves as a first foray into the investigation of decentralized caching framework and strategy for Web3.0. HE rapid evolution of Web3.0 is driving the transition from traditional centralized systems to decentralized architectures. Leveraging blockchain, decentralized storage, and smart contracts, Web3.0 empowers users with unprecedented self-sovereignty over their own data through Decentralized Applications (DApps) [1].

Reinsurance decision-making exhibits the core structural properties that motivate multi-agent models: distributed and asymmetric information, partial observability, heterogeneous epistemic responsibilities, simulator-driven environment dynamics, and binding prudential and regulatory constraints. Deterministic workflow automation cannot meet these requirements, as it lacks the epistemic flexibility, cooperative coordination mechanisms, and norm-sensitive behaviour required for institutional risk-transfer. We propose the Reinsurance Constrained Multi-Agent Simulation Process (R-CMASP), a formal model that extends stochastic games and Dec-POMDPs by adding three missing elements: (i) simulator-coupled transition dynamics grounded in catastrophe, capital, and portfolio engines; (ii) role-specialized agents with structured observability, belief updates, and typed communication; and (iii) a normative feasibility layer encoding solvency, regulatory, and organizational rules as admissibility constraints on joint actions. Using LLM-based agents with tool access and typed message protocols, we show in a domain-calibrated synthetic environment that governed multi-agent coordination yields more stable, coherent, and norm-adherent behaviour than deterministic automation or monolithic LLM baselines--reducing pricing variance, improving capital efficiency, and increasing clause-interpretation accuracy. Embedding prudential norms as admissibility constraints and structuring communication into typed acts measurably enhances equilibrium stability. Overall, the results suggest that regulated, simulator-driven decision environments are most naturally modelled as norm-governed, simulator-coupled multi-agent systems.

Fact-checking health-related claims has become increasingly critical as misinformation proliferates online. Effective verification requires both the retrieval of high-quality evidence and rigorous reasoning processes. In this paper, we propose a two-stage framework for health misinformation detection: Agreement Score Prediction followed by Multi-Agent Debate. In the first stage, we employ large language models (LLMs) to independently evaluate retrieved articles and compute an aggregated agreement score that reflects the overall evidence stance. When this score indicates insufficient consensus-falling below a predefined threshold-the system proceeds to a second stage. Multiple agents engage in structured debate to synthesize conflicting evidence and generate well-reasoned verdicts with explicit justifications. Experimental results demonstrate that our two-stage approach achieves superior performance compared to baseline methods, highlighting the value of combining automated scoring with collaborative reasoning for complex verification tasks.

Estimating catastrophic harms from frontier AI is hindered by deep ambiguity: many of its risks are not only unobserved but unanticipated by analysts. The central limitation of current risk analysis is the inability to populate the $\textit{catastrophic event space}$, or the set of potential large-scale harms to which probabilities might be assigned. This intractability is worsened by the $\textit{Lucretius problem}$, or the tendency to infer future risks only from past experience. We propose a process of $\textit{dark speculation}$, in which systematically generating and refining catastrophic scenarios ("qualitative" work) is coupled with estimating their likelihoods and associated damages (quantitative underwriting analysis). The idea is neither to predict the future nor to enable insurance for its own sake, but to use narrative and underwriting tools together to generate probability distributions over outcomes. We formalize this process using a simplified catastrophic Lévy stochastic framework and propose an iterative institutional design in which (1) speculation (including scenario planning) generates detailed catastrophic event narratives, (2) insurance underwriters assign probabilistic and financial parameters to these narratives, and (3) decision-makers synthesize the results into summary statistics to inform judgment. Analysis of the model reveals the value of (a) maintaining independence between speculation and underwriting, (b) analyzing multiple risk categories in parallel, and (c) generating "thick" catastrophic narrative rich in causal (counterfactual) and mitigative detail. While the approach cannot eliminate deep ambiguity, it offers a systematic approach to reason about extreme, low-probability events in frontier AI, tempering complacency and overreaction. The framework is adaptable for iterative use and can be further augmented with AI systems.

Computer-use agents face a fundamental limitation. They rely exclusively on primitive GUI actions (click, type, scroll), creating brittle execution chains prone to cascading failures. While API-driven agents harness rich capabilities through structured interfaces and tools, computer-use agents remain constrained to low-level visual interactions. We present UltraCUA, a foundation model that transcends this limitation through hybrid action-seamlessly unifying primitive GUI operations with high-level tool execution. Our innovation rests on four critical advances. First, an automated pipeline extracts and scales tool capabilities from software documentation and code repositories. Second, a synthetic data engine produces 17,000+ verifiable tasks capturing real-world computer-use complexity. Third, comprehensive hybrid action trajectory collection incorporates both GUI primitives and strategic tool calls. Fourth, a two-stage training methodology combines supervised fine-tuning with online reinforcement learning, enabling intelligent action selection between GUI and API. Evaluation with our 7B and 32B UltraCUA models reveals transformative performance gains. On OSWorld, UltraCUA achieves 22% relative improvement while executing 11% faster than existing approaches, averagely. Cross-domain validation on WindowsAgentArena demonstrates robust generalization with 21.7% success rate, surpassing Windows-trained baselines. The hybrid action paradigm proves essential, reducing error propagation while improving execution efficiency. This work establishes a scalable paradigm bridging primitive GUI interactions and high-level tool intelligence, enabling more resilient and adaptable computer use agents for diverse environments and complex real-world tasks.

We introduce Meta Agents Research Environments (ARE), a research platform for scalable creation of environments, integration of synthetic or real applications, and execution of agentic orchestrations. ARE provides simple abstractions to build complex and diverse environments, each with their own rules, tools, content, and verifiers, helping to bridge the gap between model development and real-world deployment. We also propose Gaia2, a benchmark built in ARE and designed to measure general agent capabilities. Beyond search and execution, Gaia2 requires agents to handle ambiguities and noise, adapt to dynamic environments, collaborate with other agents, and operate under temporal constraints. Unlike prior benchmarks, Gaia2 runs asynchronously, surfacing new failure modes that are invisible in static settings. Our experiments show that no system dominates across the intelligence spectrum: stronger reasoning often comes at the cost of efficiency, and budget scaling curves plateau, highlighting the need for new architectures and adaptive compute strategies. Perhaps more importantly, ARE abstractions enable continuous extension of Gaia2 to other environments, empowering the community to rapidly create new benchmarks tailored to their domains. In AI's second half, progress increasingly depends on defining meaningful tasks and robust evaluations to drive frontier capabilities forward.

Safe navigation is essential for autonomous systems operating in hazardous environments, especially when multiple agents must coordinate using only high-dimensional visual observations. While recent approaches successfully combine Goal-Conditioned RL (GCRL) for graph construction with Conflict-Based Search (CBS) for planning, they typically rely on static edge pruning to enforce safety. This binary strategy is overly conservative, precluding feasible missions that require traversing high-risk regions, even when the aggregate risk is acceptable. To address this, we introduce a framework for Risk-Bounded Multi-Agent Path Finding (\problem{}), where agents share a user-specified global risk budget ($Δ$). Rather than permanently discarding edges, our framework dynamically distributes per-agent risk budgets ($δ_i$) during search via an Iterative Risk Allocation (IRA) layer that integrates with a standard CBS planner. We investigate two distribution strategies: a greedy surplus-deficit scheme for rapid feasibility repair, and a market-inspired mechanism that treats risk as a priced resource to guide improved allocation. This yields a tunable trade-off wherein agents exploit available risk to secure shorter, more efficient paths, but revert to longer, safer detours under tighter budgets. Experiments in complex visual environments show that, our dynamic allocation framework achieves higher success rates than baselines and effectively leverages the available safety budget to reduce travel time.

We study distributionally robust Markov games (DR-MGs) with the average-reward criterion, a framework for multi-agent decision-making under uncertainty over extended horizons. In average reward DR-MGs, agents aim to maximize their worst-case infinite-horizon average reward, to ensure satisfactory performance under environment uncertainties and opponent actions. We first establish a connection between the best-response policies and the optimal policies for the induced single-agent problems. Under a standard irreducible assumption, we derive a correspondence between the optimal policies and the solutions of the robust Bellman equation, and derive the existence of stationary Nash Equilibrium (NE) based on these results. We further study DR-MGs under the weakly communicating setting, where we construct a set-valued map and show its value is a subset of the best-response policies, convex and upper hemi-continuous, and derive the existence of NE. We then explore algorithmic solutions, by first proposing a Robust Nash-Iteration algorithm and providing convergence guarantees under some additional assumptions and a NE computing oracle. We further develop a temporal-difference based algorithm for DR-MGs, and provide convergence guarantees without any additional oracle or assumptions. Finally, we connect average-reward robust NE to discounted ones, showing that the average reward robust NE can be approximated by the discounted ones under a large discount factor. Our studies provide a comprehensive theoretical and algorithmic foundation for decision-making in complex, uncertain, and long-running multi-player environments.