LLM Agents for Deliberative Collaboration: A Study on Joint Decision Making Under Partial Observability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06157v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:34:10 GMT
• Title: LLM Agents for Deliberative Collaboration: A Study on Joint Decision Making Under Partial Observability
• Abstract summary: Deliberation plays a crucial role in collaboration; when humans work together, they naturally engage in communication to align information and reach an agreement.<n>In this paper, we investigate deliberative large language model (LLM) agents under partially observable joint decision-making tasks.
• Score: 13.113852265536318
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Deliberation plays a crucial role in collaboration; when humans work together, they naturally engage in communication to align information and reach an agreement. In this paper, we investigate deliberative large language model (LLM) agents under partially observable joint decision-making tasks. We formalize deliberative collaboration as a cooperative joint decision problem with partial and asymmetric observations, and introduce a scalable benchmark that instantiates this problem across multiple task settings and domains in which agents must exchange information through deliberation to reach a joint decision with a shared reward. We then instantiate a reference scaffold and evaluation protocol for deliberative agents and conduct a systematic evaluation of a range of representative LLMs. The results reveal that complex deliberative collaboration tasks continue to challenge state-of-the-art language models. Even with the aid of external mathematical tools, language models may fail in either the deliberation process for aligning information or the complex reasoning process for making the decision. On the other hand, diagnostic analysis reveals that the deliberation process may also provide opportunities for reflection and error correction, sometimes improving performance over centralized baselines. Altogether, our work establishes a foundation for evaluating and improving LLM agents in deliberative collaboration and provides insights into the strengths, limitations, and properties of current LLM-based multi-agent systems.

Related papers

• Enhancing Decision-Making with Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Fictitious Play [53.56274149236814]
  Multi-Agent Fictitious Play (MAFP) is a novel MAS paradigm that represents stakeholder stances as agents.<n>MAFP iteratively updates each agent's decision by best responding to the empirical mixture of other agents' past decisions.<n>We evaluate MAFP on challenging decision-making tasks that test the capability of deciding strategies for competitive scenarios prior to acting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T17:31:06Z)
• CollabSim: A CSCW-Grounded Methodology for Investigating Collaborative Competence of LLM Agents through Controlled Multi-Agent Experiments [32.043112677406064]
  CollabSim is a simulation framework that combines a theory-grounded definition of collaborative capabilities, controlled manipulation of interaction conditions, and action-level probing of agents' internal states.<n> Experiments show that CollabSim can capture condition effects, separate model performance patterns, and reveal task-dependent effects of agent design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:06:22Z)
• Beyond Individual Intelligence: Surveying Collaboration, Failure Attribution, and Self-Evolution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems [65.90791804095561]
  Multi-agent systems address this through structured collaboration among specialized agents, but tighter coordination amplifies a less explored risk.<n>Existing surveys cover individual agent capabilities, multi-agent collaboration, or agent self-evolution separately, leaving the causal dependencies among them unexamined.<n>This survey provides a unified review organized around four causally linked stages, which we term the LIFE progression: Lay the capability foundation, Integrate agents through collaboration, Find faults through attribution, and Evolve through autonomous self-improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T14:36:13Z)
• Learning to Negotiate: Multi-Agent Deliberation for Collective Value Alignment in LLMs [0.41998444721319217]
  This work proposes a multi-agent negotiation-based alignment framework that aligns large language models to Collective Agency (CA)<n>To enable scalable training, two self-play instances of the same LLM, assigned opposing personas, engage in structured turn-based dialogue to synthesize mutually beneficial solutions.<n>Experiments show that the resulting model achieves CA alignment comparable to a single-agent baseline while substantially improving conflict-resolution performance without degrading general language capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T06:58:55Z)
• Learning to Summarize by Learning to Quiz: Adversarial Agentic Collaboration for Long Document Summarization [86.98098988779809]
  We propose SummQ, a novel adversarial multi-agent framework for long document summarization.<n>Our approach employs summary generators and reviewers that work collaboratively to create and evaluate comprehensive summaries.<n>We evaluate SummQ on three widely used long document summarization benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T08:36:19Z)
• AgentCDM: Enhancing Multi-Agent Collaborative Decision-Making via ACH-Inspired Structured Reasoning [8.566904810788213]
  AgentCDM is a structured framework for enhancing collaborative decision-making in multi-agent systems.<n>It internalizes cognitive biases and shifts decision-making from passive answer selection to active hypothesis evaluation and construction.<n>Experiments on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that AgentCDM achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-16T09:46:04Z)
• Finding Common Ground: Using Large Language Models to Detect Agreement in Multi-Agent Decision Conferences [2.0543882079879996]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant promise in simulating real-world scenarios.<n>We present a novel LLM-based multi-agent system designed to simulate group decision conferences.<n>Our results indicate that LLMs can reliably detect agreement even in dynamic and nuanced debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T09:31:10Z)
• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• Tacit Learning with Adaptive Information Selection for Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [13.918498667158119]
  We introduce a novel cooperative MARL framework based on information selection and tacit learning.<n>We integrate gating and selection mechanisms, allowing agents to adaptively filter information based on environmental changes.<n>Experiments on popular MARL benchmarks show that our framework can be seamlessly integrated with state-of-the-art algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T07:55:59Z)
• LLM-Coordination: Evaluating and Analyzing Multi-agent Coordination Abilities in Large Language Models [23.092480882456048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated emergent common-sense reasoning and Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities.<n>This study introduces the LLM-Coordination Benchmark, a novel benchmark for analyzing LLMs in the context of Pure Coordination Settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T21:18:15Z)
• Rational Decision-Making Agent with Internalized Utility Judgment [88.01612847081677]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable advancements and have attracted significant efforts to develop LLMs into agents capable of executing intricate multi-step decision-making tasks beyond traditional NLP applications.<n>This paper proposes RadAgent, which fosters the development of its rationality through an iterative framework involving Experience Exploration and Utility Learning.<n> Experimental results on the ToolBench dataset demonstrate RadAgent's superiority over baselines, achieving over 10% improvement in Pass Rate on diverse tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T03:11:45Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.