Multi-agent systems (MAS) built on large language models (LLMs) often suffer from inefficient "free-for-all" communication, leading to exponential token costs and low signal-to-noise ratios that hinder their practical deployment. We challenge the notion that more communication is always beneficial, hypothesizing instead that the core issue is the absence of resource rationality. We argue that "free" communication, by ignoring the principle of scarcity, inherently breeds inefficiency and unnecessary expenses. To address this, we introduce the Dynamic Auction-based Language Agent (DALA), a novel framework that treats communication bandwidth as a scarce and tradable resource. Specifically, our DALA regards inter-agent communication as a centralized auction, where agents learn to bid for the opportunity to speak based on the predicted value density of their messages. Thus, our DALA intrinsically encourages agents to produce concise, informative messages while filtering out low-value communication. Extensive and comprehensive experiments demonstrate that our economically-driven DALA achieves new state-of-the-art performance across seven challenging reasoning benchmarks, including 84.32% on MMLU and a 91.21% pass@1 rate on HumanEval. Note that this is accomplished with remarkable efficiency, i.e., our DALA uses only 6.25 million tokens, a fraction of the resources consumed by current state-of-the-art methods on GSM8K. Further analysis reveals that our DALA cultivates the emergent skill of strategic silence, effectively adapting its communication strategies from verbosity to silence in a dynamical manner via resource constraints.

The global semiconductor industry is getting increasingly crowded as newcomers pour in from all fronts seeking to gain a foothold in advanced chips to power new technologies. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has fueled demand for high-capacity chips as tech companies and device makers race to deliver smarter services and products. The global chip shortage throughout 2021 prompted many of them to rely more on themselves.

Here's a question: do you consider yourself to be a trusting person? Or let me put it another way: would you put your life in the hands of a total stranger? This morning I woke up. I switched on the light -- trusting that I wouldn't be electrocuted by a faulty lamp, or cord, or socket. I prepared my breakfast -- trusting that I wouldn't be poisoned by salmonella in my factory-processed muesli.

Here's a question: do you consider yourself to be a trusting person? Or let me put it another way: would you put your life in the hands of a total stranger? This morning I woke up. I switched on the light – trusting that I wouldn't be electrocuted by a faulty lamp, or cord, or socket. I prepared my breakfast – trusting that I wouldn't be poisoned by salmonella in my factory-processed muesli.