arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.00980

Can AI Scientists Coordinate at Runtime?

Zijian Liu·Yangzhixin Luo·Junyu Lu·Yi Li·Yu Chen·David Xu·William F. Shen·Xinchi Qiu·Xisen Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Multi-agent AI scientists have shown improving performance across a diverse range of tasks. Yet a common approach is design-time agentic orchestration, which typically relies on fixed workflows. In contrast, human scientists coordinate and adjust their division of labor at runtime. We therefore ask: can AI scientists also coordinate at runtime? To this end, we introduce Runtime Agent Coordination (RAC), which selects agents from existing AI-scientist hosts during execution, assigns scoped work contracts, and provides artifact-grounded verification. Verification informs subsequent agents without blocking transitions or discarding artifacts. We conduct a single-seed exploratory evaluation across Agent Laboratory, EvoScientist, and ARK on ResearchClawBench, preserving host models, tools, and permissions under host-calibrated budgets. Four cumulative conditions separate native execution, runtime communication, runtime selection, and the combined addition of contracts and verification. Runtime selection yields the highest observed mean score for each host; adding contracts and verification reduces these means, with host-dependent outcomes relative to native execution. These results motivate runtime coordination while exposing the limits of additional coordination mechanisms under constrained budgets. Code is available at https://github.com/systemind-team/Runtime-AI-Scientist.

Explore related subjects

cs.MAcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zijian Liu, Yangzhixin Luo, Junyu Lu, Yi Li, Yu Chen, David Xu, William F. Shen, Xinchi Qiu, Xisen Wang. 2026-10-01. Can AI Scientists Coordinate at Runtime?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00980

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Alignment Flywheel: A Governance-Centric Hybrid MAS for Architecture-Agnostic Safety

Multi-agent systems provide mature abstractions for role decomposition, coordination, and normative governance, but increasingly capable learned components make post-deployment safety harder to inspect, audit, and update. When safety behavior is absorbed into a decision component, narrow failures may require retraining or rollback of the full component. This instantiates our vision of the Alignment Flywheel as a governance-centric hybrid MAS architecture that decouples decision generation from safety governance. We denote the agent or policy that generates candidate trajectories as the Proposer; it passes its output to a governed Safety Oracle stack, which returns safety scores, prediction uncertainty, audit coverage uncertainty, and evidence hooks through a stable interface. An Enforcement layer applies explicit risk policy at runtime. Around this loop, a governance MAS performs monitoring, red-teaming, verification, triage, refinement, and versioned release management. The central engineering principle is patch locality: many newly observed safety failures can be mitigated through small governance batches for the Oracle stack and its audit state rather than by retraining or retracting the Proposer. The architecture is implementation-agnostic with respect to both Proposer and Oracle. It defines the roles, artifacts, protocols, and release semantics needed for runtime gating, audit intake, signed updates, staged rollout, and rollback. We demonstrate executability in two scenarios: a learned spatial Oracle patched through regression-checked governance updates, and a clinical GenAI proxy setting illustrating structured norms, escalation, and audit coverage. Our implementation code and documentation are available open source at https://github.com/decide-ugent/Alignment-Flywheel.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

High Volatility and Action Bias Distinguish LLMs from Humans in Group Coordination

Humans exhibit remarkable abilities to coordinate in groups. As large language models (LLMs) become more capable, it remains an open question whether they can demonstrate comparable adaptive coordination and whether they use the same strategies as humans. To better understand this, we compare LLM and human performance on a common-interest game with imperfect monitoring: Group Binary Search. In this $n$-player game, participants need to coordinate their actions to achieve a common objective. Players independently submit numerical values in an effort to collectively sum to a randomly assigned target number. Without direct communication, they rely on group feedback to iteratively adjust their submissions until they reach the target number. Our findings show that, unlike humans who adapt and stabilize their behavior over time, LLMs often fail to improve across games and exhibit excessive switching, which impairs group convergence. Moreover, richer feedback (e.g., numerical error magnitude) benefits humans substantially but has small effects on LLMs. Finally, we show that GRPO can be effective in reducing the excessive switching. Taken together, by grounding the analysis in human baselines and mechanism-level metrics, including reactivity scaling, switching dynamics, and learning across games, we point to differences in human and LLM groups and provide a behaviorally grounded diagnostic for closing the coordination gap.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Decentralized Multi-Agent Systems with Shared Context

Multi-agent systems (MAS) can scale large language model agents on long-horizon tasks by running them in parallel, yet existing designs waste much of this parallelism in bubbles: agent time spent waiting on others or redoing a peer's work. These bubbles stem from how agents communicate. Independent agents share nothing and rediscover what their peers have already found; peer-communicating agents wait at synchronous rounds; and under centralized orchestration, the main agent blocks on its sub-agents while progress is relayed. We propose Decentralized Language Models (DeLM), a MAS framework on top of existing agent harnesses that squeezes out these bubbles by replacing the main agent with a shared context and a task queue. Agents asynchronously claim tasks, publish findings as soon as they are available, and build on or correct one another's progress, with every peer's status visible to all. On long-horizon tasks from Terminal-Bench 4.0 and DeepSWE v1.1, and on SWE-bench Verified, DeLM is both more accurate and faster than Codex, Claude Code, their native subagents, and AOrchestra in every setting, improving accuracy by up to 17.5 points over the strongest baseline and running up to 2.49x faster than the harness it builds on. On ProgramBench, where agents rebuild programs from scratch, DeLM makes faster progress than Claude Code and finishes a 120-minute budget up to 19.9 points higher in test pass rate. The code is available on our project website at https://yuzhenmao.github.io/DeLM/.

cs.MA↗