CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 21Distributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

Multi-Agent Consensus Seeking via Large Language Models

Open access
Chen, Huaben, Ji, Wenkang, Xu, Lufeng, Zhao, Shiyu·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2310.20151arXiv 2310.20151
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Multi-agent systems driven by large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities for solving complex tasks in a collaborative manner. This work considers a fundamental problem in multi-agent collaboration: consensus seeking. When multiple agents work together, we are interested in how they can reach a consensus through inter-agent negotiation. To that end, this work studies a consensus-seeking task where the state of each agent is a numerical value and they negotiate with each other to reach a consensus value. It is revealed that when not explicitly directed on which strategy should be adopted, the LLM-driven agents primarily use the average strategy for consensus seeking although they may occasionally use some other strategies. Moreover, this work analyzes the impact of the agent number, agent personality, and network topology on the negotiation process. The findings reported in this work can potentially lay the foundations for understanding the behaviors of LLM-driven multi-agent systems for solving more complex tasks. Furthermore, LLM-driven consensus seeking is applied to a multi-robot aggregation task. This application demonstrates the potential of LLM-driven agents to achieve zero-shot autonomous planning for multi-robot collaboration tasks. Project website: windylab.github.io/ConsensusLLM/.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2310.20151

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In homogeneous multi-agent setups, agents inherently favor social conformity over critical engagement, frequently converging on repetitive, trivial agreements or mutually reinforcing hallucinated logic.

    “In these homogeneous setups, agents inherently favor social conformity over critical engagement, frequently converging on repetitive, trivial agreements or mutually reinforcing hallucinated logic [3].”

    From "Theater of Mind" for LLMs: A Cognitive Architecture Based on Global Workspace Theory (2026) · cites this paper as [3]

    In the Agent 2 discussion (page unavailable), the paper describes one erroneous agent whose mistaken state is followed by others, showing that hallucinations can propagate. The Agent 4 discussion also reports that suggestible agents may align with others. But the paper does not characterize homogeneous agents as inherently preferring conformity over critical engagement or frequently reaching trivial agreements; its Conclusion says increasing agent numbers can alleviate hallucinations. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Y. Du, S. Li, A. Torralba, J. B. Tenenbaum, and I. Mordatch. Improving factuality and reason- ing in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023. · arXiv
  2. T. Liang, Z. He, W. Jiao, X. Wang, Y. Wang, R. Wang, Y. Yang, Z. Tu, and S. Shi. Encour- aging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19118, 2023. · arXiv
  3. C.-M. Chan, W. Chen, Y. Su, J. Yu, W. Xue, S. Zhang, J. Fu, and Z. Liu. Chateval: Towards bet- ter llm-based evaluators through multi-agent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07201, 2023. · arXiv
  4. S. Hong, X. Zheng, J. Chen, Y. Cheng, C. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. K. S. Yau, Z. Lin, L. Zhou, C. Ran, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 2023. · arXiv
  5. G. Li, H. A. A. K. Hammoud, H. Itani, D. Khizbullin, and B. Ghanem. Camel: Commu- nicative agents for" mind" exploration of large scale language model society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17760, 2023. · arXiv
  6. C. Qian, X. Cong, C. Yang, W. Chen, Y. Su, J. Xu, Z. Liu, and M. Sun. Communicative agents for software development. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07924, 2023. · arXiv
  7. Y. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Cui, D. Cai, L. Liu, T. Fu, X. Huang, E. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, et al. Siren's song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219, 2023. · arXiv
  8. D. J. Sumpter. Collective animal behavior. Princeton University Press, 2010.
  9. M. Moussaïd, D. Helbing, and G. Theraulaz. How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17):6884-6888, 2011.
  10. A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and A. S. Morse. Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules. IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 48(6):988-1001, 2003.
  11. R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray. Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays. IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 49(9):1520-1533, 2004.
  12. W. Ren, R. W. Beard, and E. M. Atkins. Information consensus in multivehicle cooperative control. IEEE Control systems magazine, 27(2):71-82, 2007.
  13. Z. Lin, B. Francis, and M. Maggiore. Necessary and sufficient graphical conditions for forma- tion control of unicycles. IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 50(1):121-127, 2005.
  14. Y. Hong, J. Hu, and L. Gao. Tracking control for multi-agent consensus with an active leader and variable topology. Automatica, 42(7):1177-1182, 2006.
  15. P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N. Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 14(1-2):1-210, 2021.
  16. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V. Le, D. Zhou, et al. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
  17. S. Zhao, D. V. Dimarogonas, Z. Sun, and D. Bauso. A general approach to coordination control of mobile agents with motion constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63(5):1509-1516, 2017.
  18. S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.-U. Hwang. Complex networks: Struc- ture and dynamics. Physics reports, 424(4-5):175-308, 2006.
  19. Z. Mandi, S. Jain, and S. Song. Roco: Dialectic multi-robot collaboration with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04738, 2023. · arXiv
  20. H. Zhang, W. Du, J. Shan, Q. Zhou, Y. Du, J. B. Tenenbaum, T. Shu, and C. Gan. Build- ing cooperative embodied agents modularly with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02485, 2023. · arXiv
  21. N. Shinn, F. Cassano, E. Berman, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Reflexion: Lan- guage Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11366, 2023. · arXiv
  22. J. C.-Y. Chen, S. Saha, and M. Bansal. Reconcile: Round-table conference improves reasoning via consensus among diverse llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13007, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Y. Fu, H. Peng, T. Khot, and M. Lapata. Improving language model negotiation with self-play and in-context learning from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10142, 2023. · arXiv
  24. Y. Xu, S. Wang, P. Li, F. Luo, X. Wang, W. Liu, and Y. Liu. Exploring large language models for communication games: An empirical study on werewolf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04658, 2023. · arXiv
  25. G. Wang, Y. Xie, Y. Jiang, A. Mandlekar, C. Xiao, Y. Zhu, L. Fan, and A. Anandku- mar. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023. · arXiv
  26. X. Zhu, Y. Chen, H. Tian, C. Tao, W. Su, C. Yang, G. Huang, B. Li, L. Lu, X. Wang, et al. Ghost in the minecraft: Generally capable agents for open-world enviroments via large language models with text-based knowledge and memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17144, 2023. · arXiv
  27. J. S. Park, J. C. O'Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442, 2023. · arXiv
  28. Z. Wang, Y. Y. Chiu, and Y. C. Chiu. Humanoid agents: Platform for simulating human-like generative agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05418, 2023. · arXiv
  29. E. Akata, L. Schulz, J. Coda-Forno, S. J. Oh, M. Bethge, and E. Schulz. Playing repeated games with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16867, 2023. · arXiv
  30. D. Adiwardana, M.-T. Luong, D. R. So, J. Hall, N. Fiedel, R. Thoppilan, Z. Yang, A. Kul- shreshtha, G. Nemade, Y. Lu, et al. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09977, 2020. · arXiv
  31. X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. Le, E. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022. · arXiv
  32. O.-M. Camburu, B. Shillingford, P. Minervini, T. Lukasiewicz, and P. Blunsom. Make up your mind! adversarial generation of inconsistent natural language explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03065, 2019. · arXiv
  33. Y. Elazar, N. Kassner, S. Ravfogel, A. Ravichander, E. Hovy, H. Schütze, and Y. Goldberg. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031, 2021.
  34. K. Xiong, X. Ding, Y. Cao, T. Liu, and B. Qin. Examining the Inter-Consistency of Large Language Models: An In-depth Analysis via Debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11595, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chen, H., Ji, W., Xu, L., & Zhao, S.
Affiliations
Westlake University (CN)
ORCID
Zhao, Shiyu
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2310.20151
arXiv
2310.20151
OpenAlex
W4388184526
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
multi-agent systems, consensus seeking, large language models, agent personality, network topology, multi-robot collaboration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review