Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Preventing Rogue Agents Improves Multi-Agent Collaboration

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that simple uncertainty statistics computed from a language agent's action-token distribution can predict multi-agent task failure several turns in advance, and that rolling back the communication channel at those moments…

desk verdict Useful monitoring-plus-rollback framework with a reusable benchmark, but the headline double-reset gains lack the same-budget random baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05986 v2 pith:E2POIH5W submitted 2025-02-09 cs.CL cs.MA

Ohav Barbi , Ori Yoran , Mor Geva This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.MA
keywords multi-agentsystemslargelanguagemodelsrogueagentsuncertaintyestimationlivemonitoringcommunicationrollbackWhoDunitEnvhallucinationdetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Multi-agent systems built from language models fail when a single agent goes rogue—hallucinating a fact, fixating on the wrong suspect, or losing track of its role—and that error propagates through the group. The paper proposes watching agents as they choose actions and, when a cheap statistical signal says failure is likely, rolling the conversation back to the last irreversible action and letting the team try again. On a new Guess Who-style environment (WhoDunitEnv), on code-generation benchmark tasks, and on the GovSim resource-sharing environment, the authors report consistent gains of up to 17.4%, 2.5%, and 20.0% respectively. The signal that makes this work is not a complex model of the task; it is the shape of the probability distribution over the agent's next tokens at the moments that matter, summarized by entropy, varentropy, and kurtosis. The approach matters because it treats multi-agent failures as something to catch mid-flight rather than to repair after the final answer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the monitor: a polynomial ridge classifier over at most four scalar features. The features are the maximum entropy, the maximum varentropy, and the maximum kurtosis over the token-probability vectors at the positions in the agent's generation that contain the actual decision, together with the current turn count. Entropy measures how flat the token distribution is, varentropy how much the per-token surprise itself varies, and kurtosis how heavy-tailed the surprise is; together they act as a cheap proxy for whether the agent is confused at the moment it commits to an action. The monitor outputs an estimated probability of task success, and a threshold $\tau$ decides when to trigger the intervention. The intervention treats information-sharing messages as reversible and treats actions that consume resources or commit to an answer as irreversible, rolling back to the last irreversible action. A cap on the number of triggers (one or two in WhoDunitEnv, one elsewhere) keeps the intervention bounded.

What would settle it

Run the same 180-game WhoDunitEnv-Asym test set with the learned monitor replaced by a random restart policy calibrated to trigger at the same turns; if the random baseline matches or beats the reported gains, the uncertainty features carry no predictive signal and the method's benefit reduces to the restart itself. A complementary check is to count, on held-out trajectories, whether monitor triggers precede failures more often than the base failure rate would predict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the probability a multi-agent team will ultimately fail can be estimated at every turn from intrinsic uncertainty signals of the agent currently acting, and that acting on that estimate improves outcomes. Concretely, the authors define the monitor as an estimate of $P(\text{success} \mid P_{A_i}, j, g_i, T)$ — the probability of task success given the agent's action probability distribution, the turn, the agent identity, and the task. They fit a polynomial ridge classifier to features that are the maximum entropy, varentropy, and kurtosis over the positions in the generation that carry the decision, plus the turn count. When the monitor's success probability falls below a threshold $\tau$, an intervention undoes all reversible communication until the last irreversible action and gives the agents another chance. The paper reports that, across all evaluated settings, this procedure outperforms no-intervention and random-reset baselines, with gains up to 17.4% in WhoDunitEnv, up to 2.5% in CodeGen, and up to 20.0% in GovSim. Qualitative analysis attributes 76% of monitor triggers in one setting to identifiable failure modes: hallucination (48%), agent collapse (16%), role loss (8%), and recall failure (4%).

Load-bearing premise

The whole method depends on the assumption that a few simple statistics of the agent's word-choice uncertainty, measured at a few decision-critical positions, reliably signal that the team will fail soon; if those statistics carry no real predictive signal, the triggered resets are just random restarts and the reported gains would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, multi-agent systems can be made more reliable without changing the agents' prompts or training; the same LLM team succeeds more often when a monitor can force a retry.
  • Monitors trained on one task distribution transfer to a held-out distribution: the CodeGen monitor trained on HumanEval improves Pass@1 on LiveCodeBench from 19.3% to 21.8% over the unmonitored multi-agent system.
  • The benefit persists across task difficulty: on WhoDunitEnv-Asym with 6, 10, or 14 suspects, the paper reports gains of 14.0%, 10.7%, and 11.7% with one reset using a monitor trained for 10 suspects.
  • The paper states the approach requires the base agents to already achieve non-zero accuracy, since zero-accuracy settings provide no positive examples for training the monitor.
  • The gains come at a measured cost: average game length increases by factors around 1.4 to 1.9 when resets are used, trading extra inference compute for higher success.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: the same uncertainty signal could support targeted interventions beyond full resets, such as asking a flagged agent to justify or correct its message, which would likely cost fewer extra turns than rolling back the whole channel.
  • Extension: because the monitor needs labelled success and failure trajectories, an online variant that learns from the team's own outcomes is a natural next step; the paper notes this direction but does not implement it.
  • Extension: a testable prediction is that the method's gains should grow as the communication channel becomes more error-prone, for instance when agents receive longer or noisier contexts, because there will be more rogue-agent moments to catch early.
  • Paper limitation the authors flag: in one qualitative review, about 24% of monitor triggers could not be matched to a concrete failure mode, so improving monitor specificity is a direct next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for improving multi-agent collaboration by monitoring each agent's action-token distribution with a polynomial ridge classifier over features (entropy, varentropy, kurtosis, and turn count), and intervening by rolling back the communication channel when the predicted success probability drops below a threshold. The approach is evaluated in a new WhoDunitEnv environment (asymmetric and symmetric variants), a multi-agent code generation setup (HumanEval and LiveCodeBench), and the GovSim resource-management benchmark. The authors report gains of up to 17.4% in WhoDunitEnv, 2.5% in CodeGen, and 20% in GovSim, and support the main results with ablations, complexity analyses, and a qualitative categorization of monitor triggers.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper contributes a simple, model-agnostic, and relatively cheap mechanism for improving the reliability of multi-agent LLM systems, together with a modular new environment (WhoDunitEnv) for studying such systems. The paper has several strengths: it releases code and the environment; it uses held-out test games in WhoDunitEnv (180 test games) with multiple runs and standard errors; it selects hyperparameters on validation splits rather than tuning on the test set; and in the single-reset WhoDunitEnv comparisons it benchmarks against a random-restart baseline, which is the appropriate control for the intervention. The qualitative analysis identifying hallucination, collapse, role loss, and recall failure as trigger categories is useful. However, the strength of evidence is uneven across the three environments: the double-reset WhoDunitEnv results and the GovSim Survival-Rate claim lack necessary controls, and the CodeGen results are reported without variance or a clear statement of which data split produced the HumanEval numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, §6.2, Fig. 6, Tabs 7-8] The double-reset results in WhoDunitEnv lack a same-budget random baseline. The headline gains of 15.4-17.4% in the complexity analysis (§6.2, Fig. 6) and the conclusion that "resetting twice leads to additional gains" (§5) are all for the two-reset condition, but every reported random-control baseline in WhoDunitEnv is a single-reset random monitor whose trigger probability is tuned on the validation set (Tabs 7-8, Fig. 4-5). A random monitor with a two-reset budget could capture part or all of the additional gain simply because the team receives a second attempt at the game. Please add a double-reset random baseline (with the trigger probability tuned on the same validation split) for all conditions in which double-reset gains are claimed, or restrict the headline claims to the single-reset comparisons that do beat the random baseline.
  2. [§5, Tab. 2 (GovSim)] The GovSim Survival-Rate result for QWEN-1.5-110B is reported as 55.0 vs 35.0 with 95% confidence intervals of ±21.8 and ±20.1, which overlap substantially, and no significance test or random-reset control is provided. With only 20 test instances (albeit run multiple times), the statement that interventions lead to "significant gains" and the abstract's "up to 20.0%" are not supported as currently presented. Please provide a statistical test (e.g., a bootstrap or permutation test over the 20 game instances and repeated runs) or a random-reset baseline for GovSim, and calibrate the language in the abstract and §5 to the actual uncertainty.
  3. [§4.1, §5, Tab. 1 (CodeGen)] The CodeGen results are not sufficiently supported. Tab. 1 shows point estimates only, with no variance or significance test, for a reported gain of 1.9-2.5 percentage points. It is also ambiguous which portion of HumanEval produced the HumanEval column: the monitor is trained on a 70-30 split of HumanEval (§4.1), so the HumanEval numbers in Tab. 1 may be partially in-sample or may come from the full benchmark. Please specify the split, and either report repeated runs (or a clear statement that the evaluation is deterministic given temperature=0) and provide error bars or a significance test for the LiveCodeBench comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6 and §6.2] The caption of Fig. 6 says "WhoDunitEnv-Sym" but the text of §6.2 describes the analysis as being on WhoDunitEnv-Asym; please correct the caption (and check that the discussion in §D.5 is not duplicating the same figure).
  2. [§D.2] In the description of monitor success, the text says "if even one sample of a failed game is over the threshold, since that would trigger a reset," but the trigger condition is a success probability below τ (§2). The direction appears reversed and should be corrected to "below the threshold" or the definition of the classifier output should be clarified.
  3. [§5 and Tab. 1] The LiveCodeBench numbers in the main text (21.6% for monitor, 20.4% for multi-agent without monitoring) differ from those in Tab. 1 (21.8% and 19.3%); please make the text and table consistent.
  4. [§D.1] The notation "Test is simply R0 ∈ {[100], [210, 300]}" is unclear; presumably the test includes R0=100 and R0 values in the interval [210, 300], but the bracketed notation should be spelled out.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the monitor is a fitted classifier evaluated on held-out test games against random-reset baselines, and no load-bearing claim reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical result: a polynomial ridge classifier trained on entropy/varentropy/kurtosis/turn-count features predicts task success at intermediate turns, and triggering a communication-channel reset below a threshold improves success rates. There is no derivation chain in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of the outcome it is supposed to explain. The monitor is explicitly fitted to boolean labels from training games, but all headline gains are measured on separate test sets (e.g., 180 WhoDunitEnv games, 279 LiveCodeBench problems, 20 GovSim instances), and the main WhoDunitEnv comparisons include a random-monitor baseline with trigger probability tuned on the validation set. This is standard supervised evaluation, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (Yoran et al. 2024, Ivgi et al. 2024, Yona et al. 2024) are contextual references to related uncertainty and hallucination work; none supplies a load-bearing theorem, uniqueness claim, or ansatz that the present paper relies on to force its conclusions. The absence of a reset-matched random baseline for the double-reset conditions and the overlapping confidence intervals in the GovSim QWEN comparison are legitimate concerns about experimental control and effect size, but they are not circularity: a missing control does not make the reported gains equivalent to the model's inputs by construction. Overall, the derivation and evaluation are self-contained, and the paper does not reduce to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fitted monitor and the domain assumptions above. The free parameters are model-selection choices, not physical constants. No new physical or theoretical entities are postulated; WhoDunitEnv is a software artifact, not an invented natural entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Monitor threshold tau = Varies by model/feature, e.g., 0.51, 0.36, 0.55, 0.5, 0.37, 0.43 (Table 5)
    Trigger threshold for intervention, selected on the validation set to maximize gain (§4.2, §D.2).
  • Polynomial degree d = e.g., 1, 5, 3, 4 (Table 5)
    Degree of the polynomial ridge classifier, searched over 1..5 and selected on validation (§D.2).
  • Feature combination = e.g., Var, Ent, Var+Kur, Ent+Var (Table 5)
    Selection of entropy, varentropy, and kurtosis features per agent role, chosen on validation (§D.2).
  • Intervention cap = 1 or 2 in WhoDunitEnv; 1 in CodeGen and GovSim
    Maximum number of triggers per game or agent, chosen as a design decision (§4.2).
  • Important position selection = Suspect ID positions in WhoDunitEnv; resource amount mentions in GovSim; judge/tester outputs in CodeGen
    Manual choice of which token positions feed the uncertainty features (§2, §4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Uncertainty statistics over the agent's token distribution at selected positions predict future task failure.
    Core monitoring hypothesis stated in §2: 'if the agent is confused in their action selection, they are likely to introduce noise which could fail the whole system.'
  • domain assumption Reversible and irreversible action classification is correct in each environment, so rolling back to the last irreversible action preserves realism.
    Introduced in §2 and applied in §4.1; accusations and resource harvests are treated as irreversible, while information sharing is reversible.
  • domain assumption Monitors trained on training games generalize to test instances and to shifted complexities (e.g., 10-suspect monitor used on 6 or 14 suspects, HumanEval monitor applied to LiveCodeBench).
    Assumed in §5 and §6 when applying one monitor across difficulty levels and benchmarks without retraining.
  • domain assumption The GovSim environment and metrics from Piatti et al. (2024) are faithfully reproduced.
    The paper extends Piatti et al. to more starting resources and different models; correctness of the baseline depends on this reproduction (§4.1).
  • domain assumption For proprietary models, the top-k logprob approximation (k=10) adequately captures the uncertainty features.
    Stated in §2 footnote: 'For proprietary models, where we cannot access to the full probability distribution, we approximate pr with the top k tokens, setting k = 10.'
  • standard math Entropy, varentropy, and kurtosis are computed using the standard definitions in §A.
    These are background definitions from information theory; the paper does not prove them, and they are not a source of circularity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preventing Rogue Agents Improves Multi-Agent Collaboration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E2POIH5W

@misc{pith2026250205986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preventing Rogue Agents Improves Multi-Agent Collaboration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E2POIH5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05986}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-agent systems, where specialized agents collaborate to solve a shared task hold great potential, from increased modularity to simulating complex environments. However, they also have a major caveat -- a single agent can cause the entire system to fail. Consider a simple game where the knowledge to solve the task is distributed between agents, which share information in a communication channel. At each round, any of the agents can terminate the game and make the final prediction, even if they are uncertain about the outcome of their action. Detection of such rogue agents before they act may prevent the system's failure. In this work, we propose to monitor agents during action prediction and intervene when a future error is likely to occur. To test our approach, we introduce WhoDunitEnv, a multi-agent collaboration environment that allows modular control over task complexity and communication structure. Experiments on WhoDunitEnv, code generation tasks and the GovSim environment for resource sustainability show that our approach leads to substantial performance gains up to 17.4%, 2.5% and 20%, respectively. Thorough analysis shows that our monitors successfully identify critical points of agent confusion and our interventions effectively stop agent errors from propagating.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of our approach. We propose to improve multi-agent collaboration by monitoring agent communication and applying interventions to the envi￾ronment in case rogue agents are detected. is the agent’s ability to communicate effectively. However, establishing effective communication is a major challenge for current LLMs, which often ignore critical information in the communication (Liu et al., 2024b; Levy et a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of WhoDunitEnv-Asym Ac￾cuser and Intel collaborate to identify the culprit from a lineup of suspects. Accuser, knowing the culprit’s identity, can query and accuse. Intel chooses what and how much information to provide about the suspects. Intel can choose to provide different (broader) information than requested by Accuser. WhoDunitEnv-Sym ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Main results for WhoDunitEnv-Sym. Dor all models, live interventions lead to significant improve￾ment in Success-Rate of up to 7 points, outperforming the baseline (a cross connected by a dashed line). Inter￾estingly, resetting twice does not offer further improve￾ments. Black lines indicate standard error. Method HumanEval LiveCodeBench Zero-shot prompting 80.5% 18.2% Multi-agent 81.6% 19.3% Multi-agent + monitor 8… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance for WhoDunitEnv-Sym across difficulty levels. Results are for LLAMA-3.1-70B with 6, 10, 14 suspects. Success-Rate decreases with more suspects, but gains are consistent. 6 Ablations and Analysis We conduct additional analysis on WhoDunitEnv￾Asym, demonstrat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example monitor triggers for WhoDunitEnv-Asym with LLAMA-3.1-70B. We categorize triggers into the following categories: hallucination (48%), agent collapse (16%), losing track of their role (8%) and recall failure (4%). The information relevant to the mistake is presen…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance for WhoDunitEnv-Sym across difficulty levels. Results are for LLAMA-3.1-70B with 15, 20, 25 suspects. Success-Rate decreases with more suspects. Gains with 15 suspects is negligible, however gains with 25 suspects are similar to the original 20 suspect sett…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histogram of monitor triggers for the WhoDunitEnv-Asym test set using GPT-4O, normalized by the 180 game count. F WhoDunitEnv Prompts We make here available the full text of WhoDunitEnv prompts. For WhoDunitEnv-Sym this includes System prompts for all agents ( [PITH_F…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: WhoDunitEnv-Sym system prompts. User prompt You received the following starting facts about the Winner (these are the facts you may share): FACTS The current communication channel between you and the other players is: COMM_CHANNEL The current turn is TURN_COUNT out of…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: WhoDunitEnv-Sym user prompts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: WhoDunitEnv-Sym User prompt, message and fact formats [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: WhoDunitEnv-Asym accuser system prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: WhoDunitEnv-Asym Intel system prompts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: WhoDunitEnv-Asym User Prompt, which is identical between Accuser and Intel. Agent Messages Request Specific Agent NAME has requested information: BOOLEAN_QUESTION Request Broad Agent NAME has asked for general information (a broad message) Specific Answer Agent NAME h…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: WhoDunitEnv-Asym message formats [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Hallucination example - System prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Hallucination example - User prompt and response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AI Agent Behavioral Science

    q-bio.NC 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    AI agents should be studied as behavioral entities shaped by context and interaction, not only as trained models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    These are only visible to you

    A list of starting facts about the Winner, describing specific properties. These are only visible to you

    work page

  2. [3]

    thoughts

    The current communication channel between you and other players, containing shared facts. Game Mode: - The game proceeds in rounds. In each round, you can either award the prize to a character you believe is the Winner, share one of your starting facts or skip your turn. - If there is only one character matching the criteria according to your information,...

    work page

  3. [5]

    In Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 1306–1321, St

    Improving grounded language understanding in a collaborative environment by interacting with agents through help feedback. In Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 1306–1321, St. Julian’s, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics. Tomas Mikolov, Armand Joulin, and Marco Baroni

    work page 2024

  4. [7]

    In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    Beyond accuracy: Evaluating self-consistency of code large language models with identitychain. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. Gabriel Mukobi, Hannah Erlebach, Niklas Lauffer, Lewis Hammond, Alan Chan, and Jesse Clifton. 2023. Welfare diplomacy: Benchmarking language model cooperation. Preprint, arXiv:2310.08901. Fatem...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [9]

    In ICML 2024 Workshop on Mechanistic Interpretability

    Controlling large language model agents with entropic activation steering. In ICML 2024 Workshop on Mechanistic Interpretability. Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kam- yar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo-Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022...

    work page 2024

  6. [10]

    Journal of Big Data, 11

    Advancing cybersecurity: a comprehensive review of ai-driven detection techniques. Journal of Big Data, 11. Roy Schwartz, Jesse Dodge, Noah A. Smith, and Oren Etzioni. 2020. Green ai. Commun. ACM , 63(12):54–63. Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H. Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can...

    work page 2020

  7. [16]

    Game Modes:

    The current communication channel between you and your partner, containing shared properties. Game Modes:

    work page

  8. [17]

    In each round, you can either award the prize to a character, making them the Winner, or ask your partner for information

    Game Mode: - The game proceeds in rounds. In each round, you can either award the prize to a character, making them the Winner, or ask your partner for information. - If there is only one character matching the criteria according to your information, you should award them the prize. Otherwise, ask your partner for the most helpful information. - You can a...

    work page

Show all 26 references
  1. [19]

    thoughts

    Ask for general info, receiving a property and value combination, and a list of all characters that fit that combination. Your partner will decide what property to share. - The goal is to find the correct Winner in a minimum number of rounds. Once you award a character, the ga...

  2. [20]

    Rounds do not count towards the goal, and you will not request or award

    Analysis Mode: - In this mode, you will answer questions about the task. Rounds do not count towards the goal, and you will not request or award. - A different output format will be provided. Instructions Recap: - Focus on minimizing rounds to find the Winner. - Award as soon ...

  3. [21]

    A list of characters with their descriptions

  4. [22]

    Game Modes:

    The current communication channel between you and Beth, containing shared properties. Game Modes:

  5. [23]

    thoughts

    Game Mode: The game proceeds in rounds. In each round, you will receive a request from your partner. The request would either be a Boolean Question about one of the characters or a request for a Broad Message. Boolean question: Given the property, value and one possible charac...

  6. [24]

    Rounds in this mode do not count towards the goal, and you will not make requests or accusations

    Analysis Mode: In this mode, you will answer questions about the task. Rounds in this mode do not count towards the goal, and you will not make requests or accusations. A different output format will be provided in this mode. Instructions Recap: Focus on minimizing rounds to i...

  7. [25]

    A list of properties about the Winner

  8. [26]

    **Game Modes:**

    The current communication channel between you and your partner, containing shared properties. **Game Modes:**

  9. [27]

    In each round, you can either award the prize to a character, making them the Winner, or ask your partner for information

    **Game Mode:** - The game proceeds in rounds. In each round, you can either award the prize to a character, making them the Winner, or ask your partner for information. - If there is only one character matching the criteria according to your information, you should award them ...

  10. [28]

    You must include both a property and a value for this action

    Ask if a specific character has a specific value for a property, and get a boolean answer. You must include both a property and a value for this action

  11. [29]

    thoughts

    Ask for general info, receiving a property and value combination, and a list of all characters that fit that combination. Your partner will decide what property to share. - The goal is to find the correct Winner in a minimum number of rounds. Once you award a character, the ga...

  12. [97]

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E

    Economic Principles of Multi-Agent Systems. Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Effi- cient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings o...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [2016]

    In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems 2016, December 5-10, 2016, Barcelona, Spain, pages 2244–2252

    Learning multiagent communication with backpropagation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems 2016, December 5-10, 2016, Barcelona, Spain, pages 2244–2252. Khanh-Tung Tran, Dung Dao, Minh-Duong Ngu...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [2018]

    In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Pro- cessing, pages 29–61, Cham

    A roadmap towards machine intelligence. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Pro- cessing, pages 29–61, Cham. Springer International Publishing. Marcus J. Min, Yangruibo Ding, Luca Buratti, Saurabh Pujar, Gail Kaiser, Suman Jana, and Baishakhi Ray

  15. [2020]

    Preprint, arXiv:2007.15703

    Improving multi-agent cooperation using the- ory of mind. Preprint, arXiv:2007.15703. Leilei Lin, Yumeng Jin, Yingming Zhou, Wenlong Chen, and Chen Qian. 2024. Mao: A framework for pro- cess model generation with multi-agent orchestration. Preprint, arXiv:2408.01916. N. Little...

    2007 arXiv

  16. [2023]

    Preprint, arXiv:2302.12173

    Not what you’ve signed up for: Compromising real-world llm-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection. Preprint, arXiv:2302.12173. Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V . Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2024a. Large lan...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [2024]

    In Second NeurIPS Workshop on Attributing Model Behavior at Scale

    From loops to oops: Fallback behaviors of lan- guage models under uncertainty. In Second NeurIPS Workshop on Attributing Model Behavior at Scale. Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Armando Solar- Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoic...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [2025]

    Preprint, arXiv:2501.11759

    Poison-rag: Adversarial data poisoning attacks on retrieval-augmented generation in recommender systems. Preprint, arXiv:2501.11759. Oladiran Olajiga, Emmanuel Ani, Kehinde Olu-lawal, Danny Montero, and Adeniyi Adeleke. 2024. Intelli- gent monitoring systems in manufacturing: ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.