LLMs generate buggy code: 29.6% of SWE-bench solved patches fail, 62% of BaxBench solutions have vulnerabilities, and existing tools only catch 65% of bugs with 35% false positives. We built CodeX-Verify, a multi-agent system that uses four specialized agents to detect different types of bugs. We prove mathematically that combining agents with different detection patterns finds more bugs than any single agent when the agents look for different problems, using submodularity of mutual information under conditional independence. Measuring agent correlation of rho = 0.05 to 0.25 confirms they detect different bugs. Testing on 99 code samples with verified labels shows our system catches 76.1% of bugs, matching the best existing method (Meta Prompt Testing: 75%) while running faster and without test execution. We tested all 15 agent combinations and found that using multiple agents improves accuracy by 39.7 percentage points (from 32.8% to 72.4%) compared to single agents, with diminishing returns of +14.9pp, +13.5pp, and +11.2pp for agents 2, 3, and 4, validating our theoretical model. The best two-agent combination (Correctness + Performance) reaches 79.3% accuracy. Testing on 300 real patches from Claude Sonnet 4.5 runs in under 200ms per sample, making this practical for production use.

We present an approach for the quantification of the usefulness of transfer in reinforcement learning via regret bounds for a multi-agent setting. Considering a number of $\aleph$ agents operating in the same Markov decision process, however possibly with different reward functions, we consider the regret each agent suffers with respect to an optimal policy maximizing her average reward. We show that when the agents share their observations the total regret of all agents is smaller by a factor of $\sqrt{\aleph}$ compared to the case when each agent has to rely on the information collected by herself. This result demonstrates how considering the regret in multi-agent settings can provide theoretical bounds on the benefit of sharing observations in transfer learning.

Hypothesis generation in biomedical research has traditionally centered on uncovering hidden relationships within vast scientific literature, often using methods like Literature-Based Discovery (LBD). Despite progress, current approaches typically depend on single data types or predefined extraction patterns, which restricts the discovery of novel and complex connections. Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) agents show significant potential, with capabilities in information retrieval, reasoning, and generation. However, their application to biomedical hypothesis generation has been limited by the absence of standardized datasets and execution environments. To address this, we introduce BioVerge, a comprehensive benchmark, and BioVerge Agent, an LLM-based agent framework, to create a standardized environment for exploring biomedical hypothesis generation at the frontier of existing scientific knowledge. Our dataset includes structured and textual data derived from historical biomedical hypotheses and PubMed literature, organized to support exploration by LLM agents. BioVerge Agent utilizes a ReAct-based approach with distinct Generation and Evaluation modules that iteratively produce and self-assess hypothesis proposals. Through extensive experimentation, we uncover key insights: 1) different architectures of BioVerge Agent influence exploration diversity and reasoning strategies; 2) structured and textual information sources each provide unique, critical contexts that enhance hypothesis generation; and 3) self-evaluation significantly improves the novelty and relevance of proposed hypotheses.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for legal argument generation, yet they pose significant risks of manipulation through hallucination and ungrounded persuasion, and often fail to utilize provided factual bases effectively or abstain when arguments are untenable. This paper introduces a novel reflective multi-agent method designed to address these challenges in the context of legally compliant persuasion. Our approach employs specialized agents (factor analyst and argument polisher) in an iterative refinement process to generate 3-ply legal arguments (plaintiff, defendant, rebuttal). We evaluate reflective multi-agent against single-agent, enhanced-prompt single-agent, and non-reflective multi-agent baselines using four diverse LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Llama-4-Maverick-17b-128e, Llama-4-Scout-17b-16e) across three legal scenarios: "arguable", "mismatched", and "non-arguable". Results demonstrate that the reflective multi-agent approach excels at successful abstention by preventing generation when arguments cannot be grounded, improves hallucination accuracy by reducing fabricated and misattributed factors and enhances factor utilization recall by better using the provided case facts. These findings suggest that structured reflection within a multi-agent framework offers a robust method for fostering ethical persuasion and mitigating manipulation in LLM-based legal argumentation systems.

Domestic AI agents faces ethical, autonomy, and inclusion challenges, particularly for overlooked groups like children, elderly, and Neurodivergent users. We present the Plural Voices Model (PVM), a novel single-agent framework that dynamically negotiates multi-user needs through real-time value alignment, leveraging diverse public datasets on mental health, eldercare, education, and moral reasoning. Using human+synthetic curriculum design with fairness-aware scenarios and ethical enhancements, PVM identifies core values, conflicts, and accessibility requirements to inform inclusive principles. Our privacy-focused prototype features adaptive safety scaffolds, tailored interactions (e.g., step-by-step guidance for Neurodivergent users, simple wording for children), and equitable conflict resolution. In preliminary evaluations, PVM outperforms multi-agent baselines in compliance (76% vs. 70%), fairness (90% vs. 85%), safety-violation rate (0% vs. 7%), and latency. Design innovations, including video guidance, autonomy sliders, family hubs, and adaptive safety dashboards, demonstrate new directions for ethical and inclusive domestic AI, for building user-centered agentic systems in plural domestic contexts. Our Codes and Model are been open sourced, available for reproduction: https://github.com/zade90/Agora

We show that the proposed method significantly improves the performance of the baseline algorithm in the considered environments.

Procedural Content Generation via Reinforcement Learning (PCGRL) offers a method for training controllable level designer agents without the need for human datasets, using metrics that serve as proxies for level quality as rewards. Existing PCGRL research focuses on single generator agents, but are bottlenecked by the need to frequently recalculate heuristics of level quality and the agent's need to navigate around potentially large maps. By framing level generation as a multi-agent problem, we mitigate the efficiency bottleneck of single-agent PCGRL by reducing the number of reward calculations relative to the number of agent actions. We also find that multi-agent level generators are better able to generalize to out-of-distribution map shapes, which we argue is due to the generators' learning more local, modular design policies. We conclude that treating content generation as a distributed, multi-agent task is beneficial for generating functional artifacts at scale.