CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Distributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation

Benchmarking LLMs' Swarm intelligence

Open access
Ruan, Kai, Huang, Mowen, Wen, Ji-Rong, Sun, Hao·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2505.04364arXiv 2505.04364
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for complex reasoning, yet their capacity for emergent coordination in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) when operating under strict swarm-like constraints-limited local perception and communication-remains largely unexplored. Existing benchmarks often do not fully capture the unique challenges of decentralized coordination when agents operate with incomplete spatio-temporal information. To bridge this gap, we introduce SwarmBench, a novel benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the swarm intelligence capabilities of LLMs acting as decentralized agents. SwarmBench features five foundational MAS coordination tasks (Pursuit, Synchronization, Foraging, Flocking, Transport) within a configurable 2D grid environment, forcing agents to rely solely on local sensory input ($k\times k$ view) and local communication. We propose metrics for coordination effectiveness and analyze emergent group dynamics. Zero-shot evaluations of leading LLMs (e.g., deepseek-v3, o4-mini) reveal significant task-dependent performance variations. While some rudimentary coordination is observed, our results indicate that current LLMs significantly struggle with robust long-range planning and adaptive strategy formation under the uncertainty inherent in these decentralized scenarios. Assessing LLMs under such swarm-like constraints is crucial for understanding their utility in future decentralized intelligent systems. We release SwarmBench as an open, extensible toolkit-built on a customizable physical system-providing environments, prompts, evaluation scripts, and comprehensive datasets. This aims to foster reproducible research into LLM-based MAS coordination and the theoretical underpinnings of emergent collective behavior under severe informational decentralization. Our code repository is available at https://github.com/x66ccff/swarmbench.

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.2505.04364

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 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?

  • SwarmBench identifies coordination failures at isolated time points; whether these failures amplify or attenuate over extended multi-agent co-evolution, and whether unsafe behaviors exhibit social contagion when agents learn from each other, remains unexplored.

    “Multi-agent safety under collaborative evolution : SwarmBench (Ruan et al., 2025) identifies coordination failures at isolated time points; whether these failures amplify or attenuate over extended multi-agent co-evolution, and whether unsafe behaviors exhibit social contagion when agents learn from each other, remains unexplored.”

    From A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Ruan et al., 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In multi-agent settings, SwarmBench reveals fundamental coordination challenges where local interactions fail to produce coherent collective strategies, with agents unable to maintain shared situational understanding necessary for safe collaborative operation.

    “In multi-agent settings, SwarmBench reveals fundamental coordination challenges where local interactions fail to produce coherent collective strategies, with agents unable to maintain shared situational understanding necessary for safe collaborative operation (Ruan et al., 2025).”

    From A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Ruan et al., 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 1(2), 2023. · arXiv
  2. Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. Science China Information Sciences, 68(2):121101, 2025.
  3. Chen Gao, Xiaochong Lan, Nian Li, Yuan Yuan, Jingtao Ding, Zhilun Zhou, Fengli Xu, and Yong Li. Large language models empowered agent-based modeling and simulation: A survey and perspectives. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1):1-24, 2024.
  4. Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science, 330(6004):686-688, October 2010. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science. 1193147. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kunlun Zhu, Hongyi Du, Zhaochen Hong, Xiaocheng Yang, Shuyi Guo, Zhe Wang, Zhen- hailong Wang, Cheng Qian, Xiangru Tang, Heng Ji, et al. MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the collaboration and competition of LLM agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01935, 2025. · arXiv
  6. Haochen Sun, Shuwen Zhang, Lei Ren, Hao Xu, Hao Fu, Caixia Yuan, and Xiaojie Wang. Collab-Overcooked: Benchmarking and evaluating large language models as collaborative agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20073, 2025. · arXiv
  7. Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang, Chenfei Yuan, Chen Qian, Chi-Min Chan, Yujia Qin, Yaxi Lu, Ruobing Xie, et al. Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors in agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10848, 2(4):6, 2023. · arXiv
  8. Eric Bonabeau, Marco Dorigo, and Guy Theraulaz. Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems. Number 1. Oxford University Press, 1999.
  9. Chris R. Reid, Matthew J. Lutz, Scott Powell, Albert B. Kao, Iain D. Couzin, and Simon Garnier. Army ants dynamically adjust living bridges in response to a cost-benefit trade- off. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(49):15113-15118, 2015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1512241112. · DOI
  10. Matthew J. Lutz, Chris R. Reid, Christopher J. Lustri, Albert B. Kao, Simon Garnier, and Iain D. Couzin. Individual error correction drives responsive self-assembly of army ant scaffolds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17):e2013741118, 2021. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.2013741118. · DOI
  11. J. Buhl, D. J. T. Sumpter, I. D. Couzin, J. J. Hale, E. Despland, E. R. Miller, and S. J. Simpson. From disorder to order in marching locusts. Science, 312(5778):1402-1406, 2006. doi: 10.1126/science.1125142. · DOI
  12. Xiangzun Wang, Pin-Chuan Chen, Klaus Kroy, Viktor Holubec, and Frank Cichos. Spontaneous vortex formation by microswimmers with retarded attractions. Nature Communications, 14(1): 186, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35427-7. · DOI
  13. Craig W Reynolds. Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pages 25-34, 1987.
  14. Michael Rubenstein, Alejandro Cornejo, and Radhika Nagpal. Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm. Science, 345(6198):795-799, 2014.
  15. Jiayu Wang, Yifei Ming, Zhenmei Shi, Vibhav Vineet, Xin Wang, Yixuan Li, and Neel Joshi. Is A picture worth A thousand words? Delving Into Spatial Reasoning for Vision Language Models. In The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024.
  16. Davide Paglieri, Bartłomiej Cupiał, Samuel Coward, Ulyana Piterbarg, Maciej Wolczyk, Akbir Khan, Eduardo Pignatelli, Łukasz Kuciński, Lerrel Pinto, Rob Fergus, et al. BALROG: Benchmarking agentic LLM and VLM reasoning on games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13543, 2024. · arXiv
  17. Saaket Agashe, Yue Fan, Anthony Reyna, and Xin Eric Wang. LLM-coordination: evaluating and analyzing multi-agent coordination abilities in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03903, 2023. · arXiv
  18. Yubo Dong, Xukun Zhu, Zhengzhe Pan, Linchao Zhu, and Yi Yang. Villageragent: A graph- based multi-agent framework for coordinating complex task dependencies in Minecraft. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05720, 2024. · arXiv
  19. X Guo, K Huang, J Liu, W Fan, N Vélez, Q Wu, H Wang, TL Griffiths, and M Wang. Embodied LLM agents learn to cooperate in organized teams. arXiv 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12482, 2024. · arXiv
  20. Mohsen Raoufi, Pawel Romanczuk, and Heiko Hamann. Individuality in swarm robots with the case study of Kilobots: Noise, bug, or feature? In ALIFE 2023: Ghost in the Machine: Proceedings of the 2023 Artificial Life Conference. MIT Press, 2023.
  21. C. A. Yates, R. Erban, C. Escudero, I. D. Couzin, J. Buhl, I. G. Kevrekidis, C. C. Ioannou, P. Romanczuk, and D. J. T. Sumpter. Inherent noise can facilitate coherence in collective swarm motion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(14):5464-5469, 2009. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811195106. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Francois Chollet, Mike Knoop, Gregory Kamradt, and Bryan Landers. ARC Prize 2024: Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04604, 2025. · arXiv
  23. Kang Hao Cheong and Michael C. Jones. Swarm intelligence begins now or never. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(42):e2113678118, 2021. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2113678118. · DOI
  24. Joseph B. Bak-Coleman, Mark Alfano, Wolfram Barfuss, Carl T. Bergstrom, Miguel A. Centeno, Iain D. Couzin, Jonathan F. Donges, Mirta Galesic, Andrew S. Gersick, Jennifer Jacquet, Al- bert B. Kao, Rachel E. Moran, Pawel Romanczuk, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Keren J. Tombak, Jay J. Van Bavel, and Elke U. Weber. Stewardship of global collective behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(27):e2025764118, 2021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2025764118. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Manuele Brambilla, Eliseo Ferrante, Mauro Birattari, and Marco Dorigo. Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intelligence, 7:1-41, 2013.
  26. Carlo Pinciroli, Mohamed S Talamali, Andreagiovanni Reina, James AR Marshall, and Vito Tri- anni. Simulating Kilobots within ARGoS: Models and experimental validation. In International Conference on Swarm Intelligence, pages 176-187. Springer, 2018.
  27. Fredrik Jansson, Matthew Hartley, Martin Hinsch, Ivica Slavkov, Noemí Carranza, Tjelvar SG Olsson, Roland M Dries, Johanna H Grönqvist, Athanasius FM Marée, James Sharpe, et al. Kilombo: a Kilobot simulator to enable effective research in swarm robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.04285, 2015. · arXiv
  28. Stefanie Warnat-Herresthal, Hartmut Schultze, Kshitij L. Shastry, Sathyanarayanan Manamo- han, Saikat Mukherjee, Vaishnavi Garg, Ramu Sarveswara, Kristian Händler, Peter Pickkers, N. Ahmad Aziz, Sissy Ktena, Florian Tran, Michael Bitzer, Stefan Wuchty, Zeeshan Ashraf, Thomas Flerlage, Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, John P. A. Ioannidis, Khalid Fakhro, Habiba Alsafar, Jesmond Dalli, Gautam Adhikary, Hamish E. Scott, Joachim L. Schultze, and Mihai G. Netea. Swarm learning for decentralized and confidential clinical machine learning. Nature, 594(7862):265-270, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03583-3. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on Large Language Model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024.
  30. Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceed- ings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 1-22, 2023.
  31. Chen Qian, Xin Cong, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Juyuan Xu, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Communicative agents for software development. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07924, 6(3), 2023. · arXiv
  32. Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, et al. MetaGPT: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 3(4):6, 2023. · arXiv
  33. Juraj Gottweis, Wei-Hung Weng, Alexander Daryin, Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Petar Sirkovic, Artiom Myaskovsky, Felix Weissenberger, Keran Rong, Ryutaro Tanno, Khaled Saab, Dan Popovici, Jacob Blum, Fan Zhang, Katherine Chou, Avinatan Hassidim, Burak Gokturk, Amin Vahdat, Pushmeet Kohli, Yossi Matias, Andrew Carroll, Kavita Kulkarni, Nenad Tomasev, Yuan Guan, Vikram Dhillon, Eeshit Dhaval Vaishnav, Byron Lee, Tiago R D Costa, José R Penadés, Gary Peltz, Yunhan Xu, Annalisa Pawlosky, Alan Karthikesalingam, and Vivek Natarajan. Towards an AI co-scientist. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18864, 2025. · arXiv
  34. Daniil A Boiko, Robert MacKnight, and Gabe Gomes. Emergent autonomous scientific research capabilities of large language models, 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05332, 2023. · arXiv
  35. Altera AL, Andrew Ahn, Nic Becker, Stephanie Carroll, Nico Christie, Manuel Cortes, Arda Demirci, Melissa Du, Frankie Li, Shuying Luo, et al. Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00114, 2024. · arXiv
  36. Yoichi Ishibashi and Yoshimasa Nishimura. Self-organized agents: A LLM multi-agent framework toward ultra large-scale code generation and optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02183, 2024. · arXiv
  37. Huao Li, Yu Quan Chong, Simon Stepputtis, Joseph Campbell, Dana Hughes, Michael Lewis, and Katia Sycara. Theory of mind for multi-agent collaboration via large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10701, 2023. · arXiv
  38. Peihan Li, Zijian An, Shams Abrar, and Lifeng Zhou. Large Language Models for multi-robot systems: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03814, 2025. · arXiv
  39. Mohit Sharma, Simone Baldi, and Tansel Yucelen. Low-distortion information propagation with noise suppression in swarm networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(11):e2219948120, 2023. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2219948120. · DOI
  40. Guande Wu, Chen Zhao, Claudio Silva, and He He. Your co-workers matter: Evaluating collaborative capabilities of language models in Blocks World. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00246, 2024. · arXiv
  41. Peihan Li, Vishnu Menon, Bhavanaraj Gudiguntla, Daniel Ting, and Lifeng Zhou. Chal- lenges faced by Large Language Models in solving multi-agent flocking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04752, 2024. · arXiv
  42. Shyam Sundar Kannan, Vishnunandan LN Venkatesh, and Byung-Cheol Min. Smart-LLM: Smart multi-agent robot task planning using large language models. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 12140-12147. IEEE, 2024.
  43. Bangguo Yu, Hamidreza Kasaei, and Ming Cao. Co-NavGPT: Multi-robot cooperative visual semantic navigation using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05719, 2023. · arXiv
  44. Xudong Guo, Kaixuan Huang, Jiale Liu, et al. Embodied LLM agents learn to cooperate in organized teams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12482, 2024. · arXiv
  45. Xiaopan Zhang, Hao Qin, Fuquan Wang, et al. LaMMA-P: Generalizable multi-agent long-horizon task allocation and planning with LM-driven PDDL planner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06940, 2024. · arXiv
  46. Zhao Mandi, Shreeya Jain, and Shuran Song. Roco: Dialectic multi-robot collaboration with large language models. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 286-299. IEEE, 2024.
  47. Junting Chen, Checheng Yu, Xunzhe Zhou, Tianqi Xu, et al. EMOS: EMBODIMENT-AWARE heterogeneous multi-robot operating system with LLM agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19012, 2024. · arXiv
  48. Hongxin Zhang, Weihua Du, Jiaming Shan, Qinhong Zhou, Yilun Du, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Tianmin Shu, and Chuang Gan. Building cooperative embodied agents modularly with large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
  49. Hongxin Zhang, Zeyuan Wang, Qiushi Lyu, et al. COMBO: Compositional world models for embodied multi-agent cooperation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15000, 2024. · arXiv
  50. Kunal Garg, Jacob Arkin, Songyuan Zhang, Nicholas Roy, and Chuchu Fan. Large lan- guage models to the rescue: Deadlock resolution in multi-robot systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14293, 2024. · arXiv
  51. DeepSeek-AI. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. · arXiv
  52. Huajian Xin, Z. Z. Ren, Junxiao Song, Zhihong Shao, Wanjia Zhao, Haocheng Wang, Bo Liu, Liyue Zhang, Xuan Lu, Qiushi Du, Wenjun Gao, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhibin Gou, Z. F. Wu, Fuli Luo, and Chong Ruan. Deepseek-prover-v1.5: Harnessing proof assistant feedback for reinforcement learning and monte-carlo tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08152, 2024. · arXiv
  53. Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Jinsung Yoon, Sercan Arik, Dong Wang, Hamed Za- mani, and Jiawei Han. Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09516, 2025. · arXiv
  54. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D19-1410. URL https://aclanthology. org/D19-1410. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2009. gemini-2.0-flash 8.80 ± 1.60 3.40 ± 2.94 5.80 ± 4.35 10.40 ± 4.72 7.66 ± 2.43 36.06 claude-3.7-sonnet 4.40 ± 1.20 12.60 ± 9.62 1.20 ± 1.47 13.60 ± 3.20 4.14 ± 5.07 35.94 o4-mini 9.60 ± 0.49 2.80 ± 1.17 4.80 ± 2.64 17.80 ± 1.47 0.16 ± 0.31 35.16 deepseek-v3 4.20 ± 2.48 4.00 ± 1.41 2.60 ± 2.06 15.00 ± 1.67 5.84 ± 4.81 31.64 gpt-4.1 8.40 ± 1.85 2.80 ± 0.75 3.20 ± 1.94 13.40 ± 2.24 1.53 ± 3.07 29.33 o3-mini 3.60 ± 2.06 2.20 ± 1.17 2.60 ± 3.88 13.40 ± 1.74 2.57 ± 3.52 24.37 gpt-4o 3.40 ± 1.50 1.80 ± 1.33 1.60 ± 1.85 14.60 ± 2.24 1.38 ± 2.76 22.78 gpt-4.1-mini 1.40 ± 0.80 0.60 ± 0.49 1.40 ± 1.02 12.20 ± 2.14 6.30 ± 2.11 21.90 llama-4-scout 1.20 ± 0.75 0.20 ± 0.40 1.00 ± 1.55 14.80 ± 2.71 1.15 ± 2.31 18.35 qwq-32b 2.20 ± 1.94 1.20 ± 0.98 0.80 ± 0.75 7.00 ± 0.63 7.11 ± 3.67 18.31 llama-3.1-70b 1.80 ± 0.40 1.00 ± 1.10 0.00 ± 0.00 13.80 ± 1.17 0.56 ± 1.12 17.16 deepseek-r1 1.00 ± 0.63 1.20 ± 1.17 1.00 ± 1.10 8.40 ± 1.96 0.00 ± 0.00 11.60 claude-3.5-haiku 0.60 ± 0.49 1.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 3.60 ± 3.38 1.70 ± 2.77 6.90

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruan, K., Huang, M., Wen, J.-R., & Sun, H.
Affiliations
Renmin University of China (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2505.04364
arXiv
2505.04364
OpenAlex
W4416013219
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Modular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Keywords
large language models, multi-agent systems, swarm intelligence, distributed coordination, benchmarking, emergent collective behavior, flocking, foraging, pursuit-evasion games, synchronization, local perceptions, long-term planning, emergent behavior

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