Planning has been a cornerstone of artificial intelligence for solving complex problems, and recent progress in LLM-based multi-agent frameworks have begun to extend this capability. However, the role of human-like memory within these frameworks remains largely unexplored. Understanding how agents coordinate through memory is critical for natural language planning, where iterative reasoning, constraint tracking, and error correction drive the success. Inspired by working memory model in cognitive psychology, we present EvoMem, a multi-agent framework built on a dual-evolving memory mechanism. The framework consists of three agents (Constraint Extractor, Verifier, and Actor) and two memory modules: Constraint Memory (CMem), which evolves across queries by storing task-specific rules and constraints while remains fixed within a query, and Query-feedback Memory (QMem), which evolves within a query by accumulating feedback across iterations for solution refinement. Both memory modules are reset at the end of each query session. Evaluations on trip planning, meeting planning, and calendar scheduling show consistent performance improvements, highlighting the effectiveness of EvoMem. This success underscores the importance of memory in enhancing multi-agent planning.

The adaptation of teaching slides to instructors' situated teaching needs, including pedagogical styles and their students' context, is a critical yet time-consuming task for educators. Through a series of educator interviews, we first identify and systematically categorize the key friction points that impede this adaptation process. Grounded in these findings, we introduce a novel multi-agent framework designed to automate slide adaptation based on high-level instructor specifications. An evaluation involving 16 modification requests across 8 real-world courses validates our approach. The framework's output consistently achieved high scores in intent alignment, content coherence and factual accuracy, and performed on par with baseline methods regarding visual clarity, while also demonstrating appropriate timeliness and a high operational agreement with human experts, achieving an F1 score of 0.89. This work heralds a new paradigm where AI agents handle the logistical burdens of instructional design, liberating educators to focus on the creative and strategic aspects of teaching.

Judgmental forecasting is the task of making predictions about future events based on human judgment. This task can be seen as a form of claim verification, where the claim corresponds to a future event and the task is to assess the plausibility of that event. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-agent framework for claim verification, whereby different agents may disagree on claim veracity and bring specific evidence for and against the claims, represented as quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs). We then instantiate the framework for supporting claim verification, with a variety of agents realised with Large Language Models (LLMs): (1) ArgLLM agents, an existing approach for claim verification that generates and evaluates QBAFs; (2) RbAM agents, whereby LLM-empowered Relation-based Argument Mining (RbAM) from external sources is used to generate QBAFs; (3) RAG-ArgLLM agents, extending ArgLLM agents with a form of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) of arguments from external sources. Finally, we conduct experiments with two standard judgmental forecasting datasets, with instances of our framework with two or three agents, empowered by six different base LLMs. We observe that combining evidence from agents can improve forecasting accuracy, especially in the case of three agents, while providing an explainable combination of evidence for claim verification.

Global healthcare systems face critical challenges from increasing patient volumes and limited consultation times, with primary care visits averaging under 5 minutes in many countries. While pre-consultation processes encompassing triage and structured history-taking offer potential solutions, they remain limited by passive interaction paradigms and context management challenges in existing AI systems. This study introduces a hierarchical multi-agent framework that transforms passive medical AI systems into proactive inquiry agents through autonomous task orchestration. We developed an eight-agent architecture with centralized control mechanisms that decomposes pre-consultation into four primary tasks: Triage ($T_1$), History of Present Illness collection ($T_2$), Past History collection ($T_3$), and Chief Complaint generation ($T_4$), with $T_1$--$T_3$ further divided into 13 domain-specific subtasks. Evaluated on 1,372 validated electronic health records from a Chinese medical platform across multiple foundation models (GPT-OSS 20B, Qwen3-8B, Phi4-14B), the framework achieved 87.0% accuracy for primary department triage and 80.5% for secondary department classification, with task completion rates reaching 98.2% using agent-driven scheduling versus 93.1% with sequential processing. Clinical quality scores from 18 physicians averaged 4.56 for Chief Complaints, 4.48 for History of Present Illness, and 4.69 for Past History on a 5-point scale, with consultations completed within 12.7 rounds for $T_2$ and 16.9 rounds for $T_3$. The model-agnostic architecture maintained high performance across different foundation models while preserving data privacy through local deployment, demonstrating the potential for autonomous AI systems to enhance pre-consultation efficiency and quality in clinical settings.

Correctness alone is insufficient: LLM-generated programs frequently satisfy unit tests while violating contest time or memory budgets. We present SwiftSolve, a complexity-aware multi-agent system for competitive programming that couples algorithmic planning with empirical profiling and complexity-guided repair. We frame competitive programming as a software environment where specialized agents act as programmers, each assuming roles such as planning, coding, profiling, and complexity analysis. A Planner proposes an algorithmic sketch; a deterministic Static Pruner filters high-risk plans; a Coder emits ISO C++17; a Profiler compiles and executes candidates on a fixed input-size schedule to record wall time and peak memory; and a Complexity Analyst fits log-log growth (s, R2) with an LLM fallback to assign a complexity class and dispatch targeted patches to either the Planner or Coder. Agents communicate via typed, versioned JSON; a controller enforces iteration caps and diminishing returns stopping. Evaluated on 26 problems (16 BigO, 10 Codeforces Div. 2) in a POSIX sandbox (2 s / 256-512 MB), SwiftSolve attains pass@1 = 61.54% (16/26) on the first attempt and Solved@<=3 = 80.77% with marginal latency change (mean 11.96 s to 12.66 s per attempt). Aggregate run-level success is 73.08% at 12.40 s mean. Failures are predominantly resource-bound, indicating inefficiency rather than logic errors. Against Claude Opus 4, SwiftSolve improves run-level success (73.1% vs 52.6%) at approximately 2x runtime overhead (12.4 s vs 6.8 s). Beyond correctness (pass@k), we report efficiency metrics (eff@k for runtime and memory, incidence of TLE or MLE, and complexity fit accuracy on BigO), demonstrating that profiling and complexity-guided replanning reduce inefficiency while preserving accuracy.

Recent advancements in multi-agent systems have demonstrated significant potential for enhancing creative task performance, such as long video generation. This study introduces three innovations to improve multi-agent collaboration. First, we propose OmniAgent, a hierarchical, graph-based multi-agent framework for long video generation that leverages a film-production-inspired architecture to enable modular specialization and scalable inter-agent collaboration. Second, inspired by context engineering, we propose hypergraph nodes that enable temporary group discussions among agents lacking sufficient context, reducing individual memory requirements while ensuring adequate contextual information. Third, we transition from directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to directed cyclic graphs with limited retries, allowing agents to reflect and refine outputs iteratively, thereby improving earlier stages through feedback from subsequent nodes. These contributions lay the groundwork for developing more robust multi-agent systems in creative tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities in mathematical and scientific tasks. To enhance complex reasoning, multi-agent systems have been proposed to harness the collective intelligence of LLM agents. However, existing collaboration structures are either predefined or rely on majority voting or round-table debates, which can suppress correct but less dominant agent contributions. Recent approaches model multi-agent systems as graph networks but optimize purely for agent performance, neglecting the quality of interactions. We hypothesize that effective agent communication is crucial for multi-agent reasoning and that debating quality plays a significant role. To address this, we propose $\ours$, a multi-agent verbal reinforcement learning algorithm that dynamically constructs and refines multi-agent collaboration structures. Our method defines action spaces and a feedback mechanism that evaluates communication robustness and coherence throughout the debate. The final decision is achieved through a majority vote over all the agents. We assess $\ours$ on various reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning, creative writing, scientific reasoning, and numerical sorting. Results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms single-agent prompting methods and state-of-the-art multi-agent frameworks on diverse tasks.

Scientific sketches (e.g., models) offer a powerful lens into students' conceptual understanding, yet AI-powered automated assessment of such free-form, visually diverse artifacts remains a critical challenge. Existing solutions often treat sketch evaluation as either an image classification task or monolithic vision-language models, which lack interpretability, pedagogical alignment, and adaptability across cognitive levels. To address these limitations, we present SketchMind, a cognitively grounded, multi-agent framework for evaluating and improving student-drawn scientific sketches. SketchMind comprises modular agents responsible for rubric parsing, sketch perception, cognitive alignment, and iterative feedback with sketch modification, enabling personalized and transparent evaluation. We evaluate SketchMind on a curated dataset of 3,575 student-generated sketches across six science assessment items with different highest order of Bloom's level that require students to draw models to explain phenomena. Compared to baseline GPT-4o performance without SRG (average accuracy: 55.6%), and with SRG integration achieves 77.1% average accuracy (+21.4% average absolute gain). We also demonstrate that multi-agent orchestration with SRG enhances SketchMind performance, for example, GPT-4.1 gains an average 8.9% increase in sketch prediction accuracy, outperforming single-agent pipelines across all items. Human evaluators rated the feedback and co-created sketches generated by \textsc{SketchMind} with GPT-4.1, which achieved an average of 4.1 out of 5, significantly higher than those of baseline models (e.g., 2.3 for GPT-4o). Experts noted the system's potential to meaningfully support conceptual growth through guided revision. Our code and (pending approval) dataset will be released to support reproducibility and future research in AI-driven education.

Modern consumer banking applications require accurate and efficient retrieval of information in response to user queries. Mapping user utterances to the most relevant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is a crucial component of these systems. Traditional approaches often rely on a single model or technique, which may not capture the nuances of diverse user inquiries. In this paper, we introduce a multi-agent framework for FAQ annotation that combines multiple specialized agents with different approaches and a judge agent that reranks candidates to produce optimal results. Our agents utilize a structured reasoning approach inspired by Attentive Reasoning Queries (ARQs), which guides them through systematic reasoning steps using targeted, task-specific JSON queries. Our framework features a few-shot example strategy, where each agent receives different few-shots, enhancing ensemble diversity and coverage of the query space. We evaluate our framework on a real-world major bank dataset as well as public benchmark datasets (LCQMC and FiQA), demonstrating significant improvements over single-agent approaches across multiple metrics, including a 14% increase in Top-1 accuracy, an 18% increase in Top-5 accuracy, and a 12% improvement in Mean Reciprocal Rank on our dataset, and similar gains on public benchmarks when compared with traditional and single-agent annotation techniques. Our framework is particularly effective at handling ambiguous queries, making it well-suited for deployment in production banking applications while showing strong generalization capabilities across different domains and languages.

Large language models (LLMs) have empowered AI agents to tackle increasingly complex tasks. However, most existing agents remain limited to static planning and brittle interactions, falling short of true collaboration or adaptive reasoning. We introduce ProSEA, a modular, general-purpose multi-agent framework designed for iterative problem solving through exploration and plan evolution. ProSEA features a hierarchical architecture in which a Manager Agent orchestrates domain-specialized Expert Agents, decomposes tasks, and adaptively replans based on structured feedback from failed attempts. Unlike prior systems, ProSEA agents report not only success or failure but also detailed reasons for failure and newly discovered constraints, enabling dynamic plan refinement informed by exploratory traces. The framework operates autonomously but supports seamless integration with human collaborators when needed. Experiments on the challenging FinanceBench benchmark demonstrate that ProSEA, even without human feedback, outperforms state-of-the-art baselines and achieves robust performance across reasoning-heavy tasks. These results underscore ProSEA's potential as a foundation for more transparent, adaptive, and human-aligned AI agents.