Multi-Agent

TL;DR — L‑MARS replaces single‑pass RAG with a judge‑in‑the‑loop multi‑agent workflow that iteratively searches, checks sufficiency (jurisdiction, date, authority), and only then answers. On a 200‑question LegalSearchQA benchmark of current‑year questions, it reports major gains vs. pure LLMs, at the cost of latency. For regulated industries, the architecture—not just the model—does the heavy lifting. What’s actually new here Most legal QA failures aren’t from weak language skills—they’re from missing or outdated authority. L‑MARS tackles this with three design commitments: ...

TL;DR Traditional QA treats software as deterministic; LLM apps aren’t. This paper proposes a three‑layer view (System Shell → Prompt Orchestration → LLM Inference) and argues for a collaborative testing strategy: retain classical testing where it still fits, translate assertions into semantic checks, integrate AI‑safety style probes, and extend QA into runtime. The kicker is AICL, a compact agent‑interaction protocol that bakes in observability, context isolation, and deterministic replay. Why this matters for operators and product teams LLM products now look like systems—not prompts. They combine RAG, tools, stateful multi‑turn workflows, and sometimes multi‑agent handoffs. The result is probabilistic behavior plus cross‑layer failure modes. If you keep writing boolean, exact‑match tests, you’ll ship brittle releases and discover regressions in production. The fix isn’t to abandon testing; it’s to move from asserting single outputs to observing semantic behavior distributions. ...

TL;DR Most multi‑agent LLM frameworks still rely on a central organizer that becomes expensive, rigid, and a single point of failure. Symphony proposes a fully decentralized runtime—a capability ledger, a beacon‑based selection protocol, and weighted Chain‑of‑Thought (CoT) voting—to coordinate lightweight 7B‑class models on consumer GPUs. In benchmarks (BBH, AMC), Symphony outperforms centralized baselines like AutoGen and CrewAI, narrowing the gap across model quality and adding fault tolerance with ~negligible orchestration overhead. ...

The Takeaway A new paper proposes TradingGroup, a five‑agent, self‑reflective trading team with a dynamic risk module and an automated data‑synthesis pipeline. In backtests on five US stocks, the framework beats rule‑based, ML, RL, and prior LLM agents. The differentiator isn’t a fancier model; it’s the workflow design: agents learn from their own trajectories, and the system continuously distills those trajectories into fine‑tuning data. What’s actually new here? Most “LLM trader” projects look similar: sentiment, fundamentals, a forecaster, and a decider. TradingGroup’s edge comes from three design choices: ...

TL;DR: BusiAgent proposes a client‑centric, multi‑agent LLM framework that formalizes roles (CEO/CFO/CTO/MM/PM) with an extended Continuous‑Time MDP, coordinates them via entropy‑guided brainstorming (peer‑level) and multi‑level Stackelberg games (vertical), and squeezes extra performance from contextual Thompson sampling for prompt optimization—wrapped in a QA stack that fuses STM/LTM memories with a knowledge base. It’s a serious attempt to connect granular analytics to boardroom decisions. The big win is organizational alignment; the big risks are evaluation rigor, token economics, and ops reliability at scale. ...

Virtuous Machines: Towards Artificial General Science reports something deceptively simple: an agentic AI designed three psychology studies, recruited and ran 288 human participants online, built the analysis code, and generated full manuscripts—end‑to‑end. Average system runtime per study: ~17 hours (compute time, excluding data collection). The paper frames this as a step toward “artificial general science.” The more immediate story for business leaders: a new production function for knowledge work—one that shifts the bottleneck from human hours to orchestration quality, governance, and data rights. ...