Communication content and local connectivity shape collective accuracy in networks of machine agents
Large language model agents increasingly make decisions collectively, but collective performance depends on more than the capabilities of the individual models. This study examines how two features of the communication system, what agents transmit and how much peer information they receive, affect whether a group preserves or loses an initially correct judgment. The experiment creates a deliberate conflict between numerical majority and evidentiary strength: most agents receive weaker evidence favoring the wrong answer, while a smaller group receives stronger evidence favoring the correct one.
The results show that the form of communication matters substantially. When agents share the evidence underlying their judgments, the collective largely preserves its initial accuracy because weak-majority agents can update toward stronger evidence while better-informed minority agents are less likely to capitulate. When agents exchange conclusions without the evidence behind them, the group can instead move toward the incorrect numerical majority. The effect varies across model families and becomes more severe with greater local exposure to peer conclusions, identifying communication content and local fan-in as system-level design variables rather than treating collective error solely as a property of individual models.