arXiv:2608.16578v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation. As agents exchange information and jointly make decisions, their interactions can improve collective reasoning but may also produce herding, polarization, or amplify shared biases. Understanding and predicting these collective dynamics is therefore important for designing effective and aligned multi-agent systems. Here, we study over 10,000 communities of language-model agents that repeatedly exchange messages and revise their opinions across objective mathematics questions and subjective political statements. Despite substantial diversity in possible behavior, the individual and group dynamics can be represented by three characteristic regimes: indifference, polarization, and consensus. AI agents start indifferent and build conviction as they interact. On objective questions, communication improves collective accuracy, while on subjective questions it often drifts group opinions toward the right in the political spectrum. We explain these observations with a statistical-mechanics formalism in which agents stochastically favor lower social pressure. Given only initial opinions, our model predicts individual trajectories, outperforms all standard baselines, generalizes to unseen community graphs, and reproduces the observed group archetype distributions. Our fitted model parameters reveal the mechanics underlying our key observations: i) communities operate below the critical social temperature, which explains conviction buildup; ii) attractive ties outweigh repulsive ones, which favors consensus; and iii) agents holding the correct answer exert the strongest pull, which drives truth-seeking. Overall, our results demonstrate that collective behavior of AI agents, like that of other complex systems, follows compact and predictive dynamical laws.

Nature, Published online: 20 May 2026; doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10527-2

A reconstruction method based on Gaussian-apodized single-sideband electron ptychography removes artefacts to enable the high-fidelity identification of guest species in porous materials.

arXiv:2603.03297v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time Training enables model adaptation using only test questions and offers a promising paradigm for improving the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs). However, it faces two major challenges: test questions are often highly difficult, making self-generated pseudo-labels unreliable, and existing methods lack effective mechanisms to adapt to a model's specific reasoning weaknesses, leading to inefficient learning. To address these issues, we propose \textbf{TTSR}, a self-reflective test-time self-evolving training framework. TTSR employs a single pretrained language model that alternates between the roles of a \textit{Student} and a \textit{Teacher} at test time. The Student focuses on solving problems and learning from synthesized variant questions, while the Teacher analyzes the Student's failed reasoning trajectories, summarizes recurring reasoning weaknesses, and synthesizes targeted variant questions accordingly. This process guides the model to improve within a learnable regime through a continual self-evolving loop. Experimental results on multiple challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that TTSR consistently improves reasoning performance and generalizes well across different model backbones and general-domain reasoning tasks. These findings suggest that teacher-mediated self-reflection provides an effective pathway for stable and continual reasoning improvement at test time.

arXiv:2602.18446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.