Medical decision-making often involves integrating knowledge from multiple clinical specialties, typically achieved through multidisciplinary teams. Inspired by this collaborative process, recent work has leveraged large language models (LLMs) in multi-agent collaboration frameworks to emulate expert teamwork. While these approaches improve reasoning through agent interaction, they are limited by static, pre-assigned roles, which hinder adaptability and dynamic knowledge integration. To address these limitations, we propose KAMAC, a Knowledge-driven Adaptive Multi-Agent Collaboration framework that enables LLM agents to dynamically form and expand expert teams based on the evolving diagnostic context. KAMAC begins with one or more expert agents and then conducts a knowledge-driven discussion to identify and fill knowledge gaps by recruiting additional specialists as needed. This supports flexible, scalable collaboration in complex clinical scenarios, with decisions finalized through reviewing updated agent comments. Experiments on two real-world medical benchmarks demonstrate that KAMAC significantly outperforms both single-agent and advanced multi-agent methods, particularly in complex clinical scenarios (i.e., cancer prognosis) requiring dynamic, cross-specialty expertise. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/XiaoXiao-Woo/KAMAC.
This paper proposes a novel architectural framework aimed at enhancing security and reliability in multi-agent systems (MAS). A central component of this framework is a network of Sentinel Agents, functioning as a distributed security layer that integrates techniques such as semantic analysis via large language models (LLMs), behavioral analytics, retrieval-augmented verification, and cross-agent anomaly detection. Such agents can potentially oversee inter-agent communications, identify potential threats, enforce privacy and access controls, and maintain comprehensive audit records. Complementary to the idea of Sentinel Agents is the use of a Coordinator Agent. The Coordinator Agent supervises policy implementation, and manages agent participation. In addition, the Coordinator also ingests alerts from Sentinel Agents. Based on these alerts, it can adapt policies, isolate or quarantine misbehaving agents, and contain threats to maintain the integrity of the MAS ecosystem. This dual-layered security approach, combining the continuous monitoring of Sentinel Agents with the governance functions of Coordinator Agents, supports dynamic and adaptive defense mechanisms against a range of threats, including prompt injection, collusive agent behavior, hallucinations generated by LLMs, privacy breaches, and coordinated multi-agent attacks. In addition to the architectural design, we present a simulation study where 162 synthetic attacks of different families (prompt injection, hallucination, and data exfiltration) were injected into a multi-agent conversational environment. The Sentinel Agents successfully detected the attack attempts, confirming the practical feasibility of the proposed monitoring approach. The framework also offers enhanced system observability, supports regulatory compliance, and enables policy evolution over time.
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has brought a new paradigm to automated essay scoring (AES), a long-standing and practical application of natural language processing in education. However, achieving human-level multi-perspective understanding and judgment remains a challenge. In this work, we propose Roundtable Essay Scoring (RES), a multi-agent evaluation framework designed to perform precise and human-aligned scoring under a zero-shot setting. RES constructs evaluator agents based on LLMs, each tailored to a specific prompt and topic context. Each agent independently generates a trait-based rubric and conducts a multi-perspective evaluation. Then, by simulating a roundtable-style discussion, RES consolidates individual evaluations through a dialectical reasoning process to produce a final holistic score that more closely aligns with human evaluation. By enabling collaboration and consensus among agents with diverse evaluation perspectives, RES outperforms prior zero-shot AES approaches. Experiments on the ASAP dataset using ChatGPT and Claude show that RES achieves up to a 34.86% improvement in average QWK over straightforward prompting (Vanilla) methods.
In online learning environments, students often lack personalized peer interactions, which play a crucial role in supporting cognitive development and learning engagement. Although previous studies have utilized large language models (LLMs) to simulate interactive dynamic learning environments for students, these interactions remain limited to conversational exchanges, lacking insights and adaptations to the learners' individualized learning and cognitive states. As a result, students' interest in discussions with AI learning companions is low, and they struggle to gain inspiration from such interactions. To address this challenge, we propose OnlineMate, a multi-agent learning companion system driven by LLMs that integrates the Theory of Mind (ToM). OnlineMate is capable of simulating peer-like agent roles, adapting to learners' cognitive states during collaborative discussions, and inferring their psychological states, such as misunderstandings, confusion, or motivation. By incorporating Theory of Mind capabilities, the system can dynamically adjust its interaction strategies to support the development of higher-order thinking and cognition. Experimental results in simulated learning scenarios demonstrate that OnlineMate effectively fosters deep learning and discussions while enhancing cognitive engagement in online educational settings.
Health informatics research is characterized by diverse data modalities, rapid knowledge expansion, and the need to integrate insights across biomedical science, data analytics, and clinical practice. These characteristics make it particularly well-suited for agent-based approaches that can automate knowledge exploration, manage complex workflows, and generate clinically meaningful outputs. Recent progress in large language model (LLM)-based agents has demonstrated promising capabilities in literature synthesis, data analysis, and even end-to-end research execution. However, existing systems remain limited for health informatics because they lack mechanisms to interpret medical visualizations and often overlook domain-specific quality requirements. To address these gaps, we introduce OpenLens AI, a fully automated framework tailored to health informatics. OpenLens AI integrates specialized agents for literature review, data analysis, code generation, and manuscript preparation, enhanced by vision-language feedback for medical visualization and quality control for reproducibility. The framework automates the entire research pipeline, producing publication-ready LaTeX manuscripts with transparent and traceable workflows, thereby offering a domain-adapted solution for advancing health informatics research.
Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG) is a prevalent approach for domain-specific LLMs, yet it is often plagued by "Retrieval Hallucinations"--a phenomenon where fine-tuned models fail to recognize and act upon poor-quality retrieved documents, thus undermining performance. To address this, we propose the Adversarial Collaboration RAG (AC-RAG) framework. AC-RAG employs two heterogeneous agents: a generalist Detector that identifies knowledge gaps, and a domain-specialized Resolver that provides precise solutions. Guided by a moderator, these agents engage in an adversarial collaboration, where the Detector's persistent questioning challenges the Resolver's expertise. This dynamic process allows for iterative problem dissection and refined knowledge retrieval. Extensive experiments show that AC-RAG significantly improves retrieval accuracy and outperforms state-of-the-art RAG methods across various vertical domains.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into software development processes. The ability to generate code and submit pull requests with minimal human intervention, through the use of autonomous AI agents, is poised to become a standard practice. However, little is known about the practical usefulness of these pull requests and the extent to which their contributions are accepted in real-world projects. In this paper, we empirically study 567 GitHub pull requests (PRs) generated using Claude Code, an agentic coding tool, across 157 diverse open-source projects. Our analysis reveals that developers tend to rely on agents for tasks such as refactoring, documentation, and testing. The results indicate that 83.8% of these agent-assisted PRs are eventually accepted and merged by project maintainers, with 54.9% of the merged PRs are integrated without further modification. The remaining 45.1% require additional changes benefit from human revisions, especially for bug fixes, documentation, and adherence to project-specific standards. These findings suggest that while agent-assisted PRs are largely acceptable, they still benefit from human oversight and refinement.
Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) holds substantial promise for intelligent decision-making in complex environments. However, it suffers from a coordination and scalability bottleneck as the number of agents increases. To address these issues, we propose the LLM-empowered expert demonstrations framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning (LEED). LEED consists of two components: a demonstration generation (DG) module and a policy optimization (PO) module. Specifically, the DG module leverages large language models to generate instructions for interacting with the environment, thereby producing high-quality demonstrations. The PO module adopts a decentralized training paradigm, where each agent utilizes the generated demonstrations to construct an expert policy loss, which is then integrated with its own policy loss. This enables each agent to effectively personalize and optimize its local policy based on both expert knowledge and individual experience. Experimental results show that LEED achieves superior sample efficiency, time efficiency, and robust scalability compared to state-of-the-art baselines.
Modeling semantic and structural information from tabular data remains a core challenge for effective table understanding. Existing Table-as-Text approaches flatten tables for large language models (LLMs), but lose crucial structural cues, while Table-as-Image methods preserve structure yet struggle with fine-grained semantics. Recent Table-as-Multimodality strategies attempt to combine textual and visual views, but they (1) statically process both modalities for every query-table pair within a large multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), inevitably introducing redundancy and even conflicts, and (2) depend on costly fine-tuning of MLLMs. In light of this, we propose TableDART, a training-efficient framework that integrates multimodal views by reusing pretrained single-modality models. TableDART introduces a lightweight 2.59M-parameter MLP gating network that dynamically selects the optimal path (either Text-only, Image-only, or Fusion) for each table-query pair, effectively reducing redundancy and conflicts from both modalities. In addition, we propose a novel agent to mediate cross-modal knowledge integration by analyzing outputs from text- and image-based models, either selecting the best result or synthesizing a new answer through reasoning. This design avoids the prohibitive costs of full MLLM fine-tuning. Extensive experiments on seven benchmarks show that TableDART establishes new state-of-the-art performance among open-source models, surpassing the strongest baseline by an average of 4.02%. The code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TableDART-C52B
With the growing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automating complex, multi-agent workflows, organizations face mounting risks from errors, emergent behaviors, and systemic failures that current evaluation methods fail to capture. We present AgentCompass, the first evaluation framework designed specifically for post-deployment monitoring and debugging of agentic workflows. AgentCompass models the reasoning process of expert debuggers through a structured, multi-stage analytical pipeline: error identification and categorization, thematic clustering, quantitative scoring, and strategic summarization. The framework is further enhanced with a dual memory system-episodic and semantic-that enables continual learning across executions. Through collaborations with design partners, we demonstrate the framework's practical utility on real-world deployments, before establishing its efficacy against the publicly available TRAIL benchmark. AgentCompass achieves state-of-the-art results on key metrics, while uncovering critical issues missed in human annotations, underscoring its role as a robust, developer-centric tool for reliable monitoring and improvement of agentic systems in production.
Understanding and reasoning about entire software repositories is an essential capability for intelligent software engineering tools. While existing benchmarks such as CoSQA and CodeQA have advanced the field, they predominantly focus on small, self-contained code snippets. These setups fail to capture the complexity of real-world repositories, where effective understanding and reasoning often require navigating multiple files, understanding software architecture, and grounding answers in long-range code dependencies. In this paper, we present SWE-QA, a repository-level code question answering (QA) benchmark designed to facilitate research on automated QA systems in realistic code environments. SWE-QA involves 576 high-quality question-answer pairs spanning diverse categories, including intention understanding, cross-file reasoning, and multi-hop dependency analysis. To construct SWE-QA, we first crawled 77,100 GitHub issues from 11 popular repositories. Based on an analysis of naturally occurring developer questions extracted from these issues, we developed a two-level taxonomy of repository-level questions and constructed a set of seed questions for each category. For each category, we manually curated and validated questions and collected their corresponding answers. As a prototype application, we further develop SWE-QA-Agent, an agentic framework in which LLM agents reason and act to find answers automatically. We evaluate six advanced LLMs on SWE-QA under various context augmentation strategies. Experimental results highlight the promise of LLMs, particularly our SWE-QA-Agent framework, in addressing repository-level QA, while also revealing open challenges and pointing to future research directions.
Human conversation involves language, speech, and visual cues, with each medium providing complementary information. For instance, speech conveys a vibe or tone not fully captured by text alone. While multimodal LLMs focus on generating text responses from diverse inputs, less attention has been paid to generating natural and engaging speech. We propose a human-like agent that generates speech responses based on conversation mood and responsive style information. To achieve this, we build a novel MultiSensory Conversation dataset focused on speech to enable agents to generate natural speech. We then propose a multimodal LLM-based model for generating text responses and voice descriptions, which are used to generate speech covering paralinguistic information. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of utilizing both visual and audio modalities in conversation to generate engaging speech. The source code is available in https://github.com/kimtaesu24/MSenC
Recent studies have shown that carefully designed workflows coordinating large language models(LLMs) significantly enhance task-solving capabilities compared to using a single model. While an increasing number of works focus on autonomous workflow construction, most existing approaches rely solely on historical experience, leading to limitations in efficiency and adaptability. We argue that while historical experience is valuable, workflow construction should also flexibly respond to the unique characteristics of each task. To this end, we propose an a priori dynamic framework for automated workflow construction. Our framework first leverages Q-table learning to optimize the decision space, guiding agent decisions and enabling effective use of historical experience. At the same time, agents evaluate the current task progress and make a priori decisions regarding the next executing agent, allowing the system to proactively select the more suitable workflow structure for each given task. Additionally, we incorporate mechanisms such as cold-start initialization, early stopping, and pruning to further improve system efficiency. Experimental evaluations on four benchmark datasets demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of our approach. Compared to state-of-the-art baselines, our method achieves an average improvement of 4.05%, while reducing workflow construction and inference costs to only 30.68%-48.31% of those required by existing methods.
Large language models (LLMs), a recent advance in deep learning and machine intelligence, have manifested astonishing capacities, now considered among the most promising for artificial general intelligence. With human-like capabilities, LLMs have been used to simulate humans and serve as AI assistants across many applications. As a result, great concern has arisen about whether and under what circumstances LLMs think and behave like real human agents. Rationality is among the most important concepts in assessing human behavior, both in thinking (i.e., theoretical rationality) and in taking action (i.e., practical rationality). In this work, we propose the first benchmark for evaluating the omnibus rationality of LLMs, covering a wide range of domains and LLMs. The benchmark includes an easy-to-use toolkit, extensive experimental results, and analysis that illuminates where LLMs converge and diverge from idealized human rationality. We believe the benchmark can serve as a foundational tool for both developers and users of LLMs.
Effort estimation is a crucial activity in agile software development, where teams collaboratively review, discuss, and estimate the effort required to complete user stories in a product backlog. Current practices in agile effort estimation heavily rely on subjective assessments, leading to inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the estimates. While recent machine learning-based methods show promising accuracy, they cannot explain or justify their estimates and lack the capability to interact with human team members. Our paper fills this significant gap by leveraging the powerful capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). We propose a novel LLM-based multi-agent framework for agile estimation that not only can produce estimates, but also can coordinate, communicate and discuss with human developers and other agents to reach a consensus. Evaluation results on a real-life dataset show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art techniques across all evaluation metrics in the majority of the cases. Our human study with software development practitioners also demonstrates an overwhelmingly positive experience in collaborating with our agents in agile effort estimation.
Effective interactive tool use requires agents to master Tool Integrated Reasoning (TIR): a complex process involving multi-turn planning and long-context dialogue management. To train agents for this dynamic process, particularly in multi-modal contexts, we introduce a sandbox environment for reinforcement learning (RL) that supports interleaved speech-text rollouts. Our core strategy, Turn-level Adjudicated Reinforcement Learning (TARL), addresses the challenge of credit assignment in long-horizon tasks by employing a Large Language Model (LLM) as a judge to provide turn-level evaluation. To enhance exploration, we integrate a mixed-task training curriculum with mathematical reasoning problems. This unified approach boosts the task pass rate on the text-based $\tau$-bench by over 6% compared to strong RL baselines. Crucially, we demonstrate our framework's suitability for fine-tuning a multi-modal foundation model for agentic tasks. By training a base multi-modal LLM on interleaved speech-text rollouts, we equip it with tool-use abilities, paving the way for more natural, voice-driven interactive agents.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as task-oriented agents, where success depends on their ability to generate accurate function calls under realistic, multilingual conditions. However, existing agent evaluations largely overlook cultural and linguistic diversity, often relying on monolingual or naively translated benchmarks. We introduce Ticket-Bench, a benchmark for multilingual agent evaluation in task-oriented scenarios. Ticket-Bench simulates the domain of soccer ticket purchases across six major languages: Portuguese, English, Spanish, German, Italian, and French. Using localized teams, cities, and user profiles to provide a higher level of realism. We evaluate a wide range of commercial and open-source LLMs, measuring function-calling accuracy and consistency across languages. Results show that reasoning-oriented models (e.g., GPT-5, Qwen3-235B) dominate performance but still exhibit notable cross-lingual disparities. These findings underscore the need for culturally aware, multilingual benchmarks to guide the development of robust LLM agents.
We present GestOS, a gesture-based operating system for high-level control of heterogeneous robot teams. Unlike prior systems that map gestures to fixed commands or single-agent actions, GestOS interprets hand gestures semantically and dynamically distributes tasks across multiple robots based on their capabilities, current state, and supported instruction sets. The system combines lightweight visual perception with large language model (LLM) reasoning: hand poses are converted into structured textual descriptions, which the LLM uses to infer intent and generate robot-specific commands. A robot selection module ensures that each gesture-triggered task is matched to the most suitable agent in real time. This architecture enables context-aware, adaptive control without requiring explicit user specification of targets or commands. By advancing gesture interaction from recognition to intelligent orchestration, GestOS supports scalable, flexible, and user-friendly collaboration with robotic systems in dynamic environments.
Web agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can autonomously perform complex, multistep tasks in dynamic web environments. However, current evaluations mostly focus on the overall success while overlooking intermediate errors. This limits insight into failure modes and hinders systematic improvement. This work analyzes existing benchmarks and highlights the lack of fine-grained diagnostic tools. To address this gap, we propose a modular evaluation framework that decomposes agent pipelines into interpretable stages for detailed error analysis. Using the SeeAct framework and the Mind2Web dataset as a case study, we show how this approach reveals actionable weaknesses missed by standard metrics - paving the way for more robust and generalizable web agents.
Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) provides a powerful framework for learning coordination in multi-agent systems. However, applying MARL to robotics still remains challenging due to high-dimensional continuous joint action spaces, complex reward design, and non-stationary transitions inherent to decentralized settings. On the other hand, humans learn complex coordination through staged curricula, where long-horizon behaviors are progressively built upon simpler skills. Motivated by this, we propose CRAFT: Coaching Reinforcement learning Autonomously using Foundation models for multi-robot coordination Tasks, a framework that leverages the reasoning capabilities of foundation models to act as a "coach" for multi-robot coordination. CRAFT automatically decomposes long-horizon coordination tasks into sequences of subtasks using the planning capability of Large Language Models (LLMs). In what follows, CRAFT trains each subtask using reward functions generated by LLM, and refines them through a Vision Language Model (VLM)-guided reward-refinement loop. We evaluate CRAFT on multi-quadruped navigation and bimanual manipulation tasks, demonstrating its capability to learn complex coordination behaviors. In addition, we validate the multi-quadruped navigation policy in real hardware experiments.
Generative Engine Marketing (GEM) is an emerging ecosystem for monetizing generative engines, such as LLM-based chatbots, by seamlessly integrating relevant advertisements into their responses. At the core of GEM lies the generation and evaluation of ad-injected responses. However, existing benchmarks are not specifically designed for this purpose, which limits future research. To address this gap, we propose GEM-Bench, the first comprehensive benchmark for ad-injected response generation in GEM. GEM-Bench includes three curated datasets covering both chatbot and search scenarios, a metric ontology that captures multiple dimensions of user satisfaction and engagement, and several baseline solutions implemented within an extensible multi-agent framework. Our preliminary results indicate that, while simple prompt-based methods achieve reasonable engagement such as click-through rate, they often reduce user satisfaction. In contrast, approaches that insert ads based on pre-generated ad-free responses help mitigate this issue but introduce additional overhead. These findings highlight the need for future research on designing more effective and efficient solutions for generating ad-injected responses in GEM.
Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden concentrated on a small minority of scholars, inconsistent quality and low inter-reviewer agreement, and systematic biases by gender, language, and institutional prestige. Decades of human-centered reforms have yielded only marginal improvements. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs), is being piloted across the peer-review pipeline by journals, funders, and individual reviewers. Early studies suggest that AI assistance can produce reviews comparable in quality to humans, accelerate reviewer selection and feedback, and reduce certain biases, but also raise distinctive concerns about hallucination, confidentiality, gaming, novelty recognition, and loss of trust. In this paper, we map the aims and persistent failure modes of peer review to specific LLM applications and systematically analyze the objections they raise alongside safeguards that could make their use acceptable. Drawing on emerging evidence, we show that targeted, supervised LLM assistance can plausibly improve error detection, timeliness, and reviewer workload without displacing human judgment. We highlight advanced architectures, including fine-tuned, retrieval-augmented, and multi-agent systems, that may enable more reliable, auditable, and interdisciplinary review. We argue that ethical and practical considerations are not peripheral but constitutive: the legitimacy of AI-assisted peer review depends on governance choices as much as technical capacity. The path forward is neither uncritical adoption nor reflexive rejection, but carefully scoped pilots with explicit evaluation metrics, transparency, and accountability.
Personalized financial advice requires consideration of user goals, constraints, risk tolerance, and jurisdiction. Prior LLM work has focused on support systems for investors and financial planners. Simultaneously, numerous recent studies examine broader personal finance tasks, including budgeting, debt management, retirement, and estate planning, through agentic pipelines that incur high maintenance costs, yielding less than 25% of their expected financial returns. In this study, we introduce a novel and reproducible framework that integrates relevant financial context with behavioral finance studies to construct supervision data for end-to-end advisors. Using this framework, we create a 19k sample reasoning dataset and conduct a comprehensive fine-tuning of the Qwen-3-8B model on the dataset. Through a held-out test split and a blind LLM-jury study, we demonstrate that through careful data curation and behavioral integration, our 8B model achieves performance comparable to significantly larger baselines (14-32B parameters) across factual accuracy, fluency, and personalization metrics while incurring 80% lower costs than the larger counterparts.
Analog and mixed-signal circuit design remains challenging due to the shortage of high-quality data and the difficulty of embedding domain knowledge into automated flows. Traditional black-box optimization achieves sampling efficiency but lacks circuit understanding, which often causes evaluations to be wasted in low-value regions of the design space. In contrast, learning-based methods embed structural knowledge but are case-specific and costly to retrain. Recent attempts with large language models show potential, yet they often rely on manual intervention, limiting generality and transparency. We propose TopoSizing, an end-to-end framework that performs robust circuit understanding directly from raw netlists and translates this knowledge into optimization gains. Our approach first applies graph algorithms to organize circuits into a hierarchical device-module-stage representation. LLM agents then execute an iterative hypothesis-verification-refinement loop with built-in consistency checks, producing explicit annotations. Verified insights are integrated into Bayesian optimization through LLM-guided initial sampling and stagnation-triggered trust-region updates, improving efficiency while preserving feasibility.
While virtual reality (VR) excels at simulating physical environments, its effectiveness for training complex interpersonal skills is limited by a lack of psychologically plausible virtual humans. This is a critical gap in high-stakes domains like medical education, where communication is a core competency. This paper introduces a framework that integrates large language models (LLMs) into immersive VR to create medically coherent virtual patients with distinct, consistent personalities, built on a modular architecture that decouples personality from clinical data. We evaluated our system in a mixed-method, within-subjects study with licensed physicians who engaged in simulated consultations. Results demonstrate that the approach is not only feasible but is also perceived by physicians as a highly rewarding and effective training enhancement. Furthermore, our analysis uncovers critical design principles, including a ``realism-verbosity paradox" where less communicative agents can seem more artificial, and the need for challenges to be perceived as authentic to be instructive. This work provides a validated framework and key insights for developing the next generation of socially intelligent VR training environments.
Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks. Recent research has introduced Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, which leverage multiple LLMs to simulate human debate and thereby improve task performance. However, while some LLMs may possess superior knowledge or reasoning capabilities for specific tasks, they often struggle to clearly communicate this advantage during debates, in part due to a lack of confidence expression. Moreover, inappropriate confidence expression can cause agents in MAD systems to either stubbornly maintain incorrect beliefs or converge prematurely on suboptimal answers, ultimately reducing debate effectiveness and overall system performance. To address these challenges, we propose incorporating confidence expression into MAD systems to allow LLMs to explicitly communicate their confidence levels. To validate this approach, we develop ConfMAD, a MAD framework that integrates confidence expression throughout the debate process. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, and we further analyze how confidence influences debate dynamics, offering insights into the design of confidence-aware MAD systems.
High-quality annotated data is a cornerstone of modern Natural Language Processing (NLP). While recent methods begin to leverage diverse annotation sources-including Large Language Models (LLMs), Small Language Models (SLMs), and human experts-they often focus narrowly on the labeling step itself. A critical gap remains in the holistic process control required to manage these sources dynamically, addressing complex scheduling and quality-cost trade-offs in a unified manner. Inspired by real-world crowdsourcing companies, we introduce CrowdAgent, a multi-agent system that provides end-to-end process control by integrating task assignment, data annotation, and quality/cost management. It implements a novel methodology that rationally assigns tasks, enabling LLMs, SLMs, and human experts to advance synergistically in a collaborative annotation workflow. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CrowdAgent through extensive experiments on six diverse multimodal classification tasks. The source code and video demo are available at https://github.com/QMMMS/CrowdAgent.
Modern scientific discovery increasingly relies on workflows that process data across the Edge, Cloud, and High Performance Computing (HPC) continuum. Comprehensive and in-depth analyses of these data are critical for hypothesis validation, anomaly detection, reproducibility, and impactful findings. Although workflow provenance techniques support such analyses, at large scale, the provenance data become complex and difficult to analyze. Existing systems depend on custom scripts, structured queries, or static dashboards, limiting data interaction. In this work, we introduce an evaluation methodology, reference architecture, and open-source implementation that leverages interactive Large Language Model (LLM) agents for runtime data analysis. Our approach uses a lightweight, metadata-driven design that translates natural language into structured provenance queries. Evaluations across LLaMA, GPT, Gemini, and Claude, covering diverse query classes and a real-world chemistry workflow, show that modular design, prompt tuning, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enable accurate and insightful LLM agent responses beyond recorded provenance.
[Background] Large Language Model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) are transforming software development by enabling autonomous collaboration. Classical software processes such asWaterfall, V-Model, and Agile offer structured coordination patterns that can be repurposed to guide these agent interactions. [Aims] This study explores how traditional software development processes can be adapted as coordination scaffolds for LLM based MAS and examines their impact on code quality, cost, and productivity. [Method] We executed 11 diverse software projects under three process models and four GPT variants, totaling 132 runs. Each output was evaluated using standardized metrics for size (files, LOC), cost (execution time, token usage), and quality (code smells, AI- and human detected bugs). [Results] Both process model and LLM choice significantly affected system performance. Waterfall was most efficient, V-Model produced the most verbose code, and Agile achieved the highest code quality, albeit at higher computational cost. [Conclusions] Classical software processes can be effectively instantiated in LLM-based MAS, but each entails trade-offs across quality, cost, and adaptability. Process selection should reflect project goals, whether prioritizing efficiency, robustness, or structured validation.
Automated issue solving seeks to autonomously identify and repair defective code snippets across an entire codebase. SWE-Bench has emerged as the most widely adopted benchmark for evaluating progress in this area. While LLM-based agentic tools show great promise, they still fail on a substantial portion of tasks. Moreover, current evaluations primarily report aggregate issue-solving rates, which obscure the underlying causes of success and failure, making it challenging to diagnose model weaknesses or guide targeted improvements. To bridge this gap, we first analyze the performance and efficiency of three SOTA tools, spanning both pipeline-based and agentic architectures, in automated issue solving tasks of SWE-Bench-Verified under varying task characteristics. Furthermore, to move from high-level performance metrics to underlying cause analysis, we conducted a systematic manual analysis of 150 failed instances. From this analysis, we developed a comprehensive taxonomy of failure modes comprising 3 primary phases, 9 main categories, and 25 fine-grained subcategories. Then we systematically analyze the distribution of the identified failure modes, the results reveal distinct failure fingerprints between the two architectural paradigms, with the majority of agentic failures stemming from flawed reasoning and cognitive deadlocks. Motivated by these insights, we propose a collaborative Expert-Executor framework. It introduces a supervisory Expert agent tasked with providing strategic oversight and course-correction for a primary Executor agent. This architecture is designed to correct flawed reasoning and break the cognitive deadlocks that frequently lead to failure. Experiments show that our framework solves 22.2% of previously intractable issues for a leading single agent. These findings pave the way for building more robust agents through diagnostic evaluation and collaborative design.