arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.17932

Collective Counterfactual Planning: Coordination, Consent, and Verification under Representational Constraints

Chainarong Amornbunchornvej
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Groups routinely complete projects that no single member can plan, execute, or verify alone. We propose a formal model of this phenomenon, Collective Counterfactual Planning (CCP), in which the binding limitation on each agent is neither capability, knowledge, nor observability, but representational geometry: each agent perceives the state, conceives moves, consents to actions, and certifies goal requirements only through a projection onto an agent-specific subspace of a common task space. Four gates jointly determine whether a team can reach a conjunctive goal and legitimately recognize that it has done so: the exogenous implementation coalitions required to perform each action, together with three representational gates -- conception, consent, and task-relative verification qualification. We define the Collective Counterfactual Solvability (CCS) problem, separating geometric feasibility, executable attainment, and validated completion. The results expose a positive-negative duality. Iterated cross-agent relay can unlock a solution that no one-shot pooling of individual plans contains, but any goal requirement depending essentially on the subspace dark to the entire team is unverifiable and therefore not validly completable, even when the trajectory accidentally attains it. Memoryless and audited consent further constrain different objects -- action directions versus cumulative trajectory states -- and neither dominates the other. A four-step exhaustive horizon-bounded solvability scheme is sound and complete under exact representation of the relay closure; restricted implementations remain sound on returned plans but need not be complete. The model gives one geometry for sequential mutual enabling, competent execution of steps whose purpose is invisible to the executor, forced sub-teaming at expertise boundaries, and completion that cannot be validly declared.

Explore related subjects

cs.MAcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chainarong Amornbunchornvej. 2026-08-18. Collective Counterfactual Planning: Coordination, Consent, and Verification under Representational Constraints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17932

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MulRobBench: A Decision-Level Benchmark for Safe and Security-Policy-Compliant Multimodal UAV Agents

In IoT-enabled smart-city settings, Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are evolving from passive sensing platforms into cyber-physical decision makers that must respect operational rules under degraded observations and ambiguous language. Existing UAV and multimodal benchmarks cover aerial perception, navigation, collaboration, and task reasoning, but rarely test whether physical evidence, protocol constraints, and action risk stay coupled at critical decisions. We introduce MulRobBench, an offline, protocol-conditioned benchmark for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) UAV agents that links real UAV multimodal observations, protocol-level security-policy constraints, and action-level cyber-physical safety within an auditable decision contract. The evaluation set contains 3,024 samples spanning 17 task-taxonomy nodes and 12 metric scoring dimensions, organized around context understanding, multimodal evidence arbitration, degradation-aware reasoning, and risk-aware action planning. MulRobBench reports controlled semantic scores alongside strict structural diagnostics for policy compliance, formatting, unsafe actions, parsing, and dimension-level validity. Across 17 uniformly audited models, the best semantic protocol-decision score reaches 0.5141 and the best strict mean scoring-dimension accuracy reaches 0.1599. A matched 20-anchor modality-removal study changes 4-15 action selections per model, showing both visual and textual inputs influence decisions while the strongest input condition varies across metrics. Per-dimension and conditional analyses identify modality-trust selection, constraint extraction, strong glare, missing data, and high-entropy operator shorthand as principal sources of action instability. The central challenge is thus stable coupling of degraded evidence, security-policy constraints, and risk-bearing action, not isolated scene recognition.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Loop-Back Authority in LLM Agent Teams: A Paired Experiment on Flat and Hierarchical Coordination

Hierarchical orchestration, in which a Manager agent reviews worker output and can send it back for revision, is the default coordination pattern in production multi-agent LLM frameworks. Classical organizational theory predicts that the authority link speeds convergence on decisive output; work on sycophancy and Degeneration-of-Thought predicts that authoritative critique makes LLM output worse. Prior comparisons vary whole frameworks on tasks with checkable answers, leaving the authority link untested on open-ended work. We present a paired experiment that holds five LLM agents, their roles, prompts, tools, models, and data fixed and varies one link: whether the Manager may reject a worker's output and oblige a revision. Across 43 paired products and 86 runs of a business-intelligence reporting task, a five-model judge panel and a deterministic specification check score every report. The flat organization scores higher on Utility (d = 0.42, p = 0.009) and on Writing Clarity (d = 0.34, p = 0.030); the classical prediction fails. The reports are the same length, but hierarchical reports hedge 53% more, each revision loop is associated with a 0.14-point drop in Writing Clarity, and the hierarchical Writer's first draft is indistinguishable from the flat report: the gap opens inside the revision loop. Specification accuracy is at ceiling in both organizations, and the supervisory tier costs 51.5% more tokens for no quality gain. A supervisor pays for itself when it can verify and becomes a liability when it can only opine.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Learning How Much to Collaborate: Difficulty-Aware Topology Selection for Multi-Agent Code Generation

Multi-agent systems for code generation are deployed with a single communication topology, chosen once for every problem. This is the wrong granularity. Evaluating five topologies on 614 problems from APPS, HumanEval+ and LiveCodeBench, we find that the advantage of hierarchical collaboration over a single agent grows from 2.4 points of pass@1 on the easiest third of problems to 21.1 points on the hardest third, while its token cost stays about ten times higher. We propose the Difficulty-Aware Topology Selector (DATS), which predicts each topology's probability of solving a problem and selects the one maximising predicted success minus cost. Its predictor is a graph network that treats the five topologies as nodes of a connectivity order rather than independent labels, worth 1.7 points over a flat multi-label head. Because the cost penalty is a single scalar recalibrable without retraining, routers compare at equal spend: under this budget-matched protocol six cost-aware methods span 21.6 percentage points, and two baselines leading DATS fall behind once calibrated to it. Fixed at 40% of the always-hierarchical cost, DATS reaches 77.7% pass@1 against 73.6% (always-hierarchical) and 74.3% (strongest learned competitor), all eleven pairwise McNemar comparisons surviving Holm-Bonferroni correction. The 4.1-point gain holds across four backbones spanning fourteen points of capability, and replacing the 39 interpretable features with a graph network or a pretrained encoder shifts accuracy by at most 1.3 points, never significantly. A cross-domain study on 400 mathematical reasoning problems reproduces the effect, the gap widening from 2.5 to 20.9 points.

cs.MA↗