Multi-agent LLM systems relay key-value caches instead of text and credit their gains to exchanged"latent thoughts". That credit is a claim about which example's cache is relayed, not merely that one is. We audit it causally in released systems. The cache is replaced with deranged (mismatched-example), zeroed, and moment-matched random counterparts, under two regimes defined by whether the receiver needs the sender's private information. Where it does, the battery reads ceiling: 100% against 23-25% for answer-irrelevant relays on the primary backbone, a contrast replicated across three families, five checkpoints, and a prose document-QA surface. Where it does not, a pre-registered five-seed protocol establishes equivalence within 2.8 points, a margin anchored to the audited system's reported gain, under Holm-corrected TOST on GSM8K and ARC-Challenge across three Qwen3 scales and on MedQA at 8B (one cell shows a small detected advantage inside the margin); a second family shows no detected advantage. A large cache effect need not be a pairing effect. In one natural cell, zeroing the relay costs 14.7 points; a mismatched cache, 0.4. Nor is need sufficient: under the same test, delivered channels span ceiling (LatentMAS's native relay), partial (KVComm's layer subset), and no detected example-specific transfer (C2C's released projector). Benchmark deltas do not by themselves establish latent-thought transmission; establishing it takes a mismatched-cache audit, which we release.
Self-substitution comparisons further show that example-specific content and other-agent value are distinct and show that aggregate accuracy does not identify how a latent message affects the receiver and motivate controlled message comparisons as a standard evaluation for latent communication.
LLM agents reach users through resellers, who may rebrand a developer's agent or substitute a cheaper model. When provenance is disputed, attribution rests on the trajectory log (the record of tool calls, observations, and executed actions, not the model's reasoning), which the reseller stores and processes to meter usage. A watermark must therefore survive an adversary with full read/write access to the very evidence it is detected from; existing agent watermarks do not, as their attribution is read straight off that log. We present TRACE, to our knowledge the first agent watermark that is distortion-free in its action choices, self-synchronizing under deletion, and unconditionally invariant under rewriting. Deletion desynchronizes a position-derived key and rewriting alters content, so a deletion-robust key must come from content and a rewrite-robust key from position, and no single key serves both. A trajectory, however, has room for two watermarks. TRACE superposes a selection channel that sets which action is chosen, keyed on local content with a distortion-free sampler, so the agent's distribution is provably unchanged and detection resynchronizes after deletions, and a tally channel that sets how many records each decision group holds, keyed on the log's skeleton alone, which no rewriting can touch. We prove this behavioral watermark's signal is bought with decision entropy, each decision paying at least half its entropy and deterministic decisions nothing, and that erasing both channels forces the reseller to corrupt the trajectories it resells. On ToolBench and ALFWorld, TRACE matches the unwatermarked agent's success rate while its selection channel reaches detection scores near z = 100 on long-horizon trajectories, stays detectable under 70% step deletion, and keeps a tally channel exactly unchanged under LLM rewriting of any strength.
Zhengguang Gao, Xiaoyu Li, Xiaoyang Feng et al.· 1 citation
An auditable framework is built that maintains an external belief state over hidden roles, logs belief updates and belief-action deviations as structured evidence, and supports a defensive offline improvement loop that reviews bad cases before any strategy change.
Yuanpeng Gao, Jiangyi Yang, Yao Zhao et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Humans are the transport layer between AI systems, losing context at every hop. We present the Civilization Framework, whose addressable party is the civilization, not the agent (one human sovereign, a persistent ledger, and interchangeable agents), and the Embassy Protocol, a carrier-agnostic overlay: messages arrive asynchronously at a resident ledger endpoint, any online agent of the receiver handles them, and commitment state on both ledgers, not delivery, is ground truth. Authority derives from memory: an agent's power to act for its civilization is capped by the memory it can access and externalized through signed credentials, separate from civilization-level reputation. We identify the temporal-weight effect, a hazard in AI-to-AI communication where what arrives first acquires unearned authority, and test it in one frontier model in a preregistered 1,908-trial experiment. With verification removed, an incorrect upstream claim arriving first captures 54.2% of answers (4.2% under full verification), while the same claim arriving after the receiver has sealed its own answer captures 31.6% (the two prompt shells are not length-matched, so part of that gap may reflect shell form; see Section 7), and both registered question-set specifications agree on these two verdicts (the exclusion specification is preregistered as under-powered). Two secondary results, the mitigation from instruction-level provenance labeling and sealed-answer accuracy equivalence, are specification-dependent, holding only under the all-questions specification. Because a registered check of tool use failed its call-budget condition, the registration classifies the round as inconclusive and every result above, primary and secondary, is reported as exploratory; a replication with harness-enforced budgets is planned. The framework's intra-civilization layer has a working implementation.
The collaboration tax is formulated as the team-decentralisation loss of a two-player cooperative game with private information, with two propositions characterising its sign and its equivalence to a max-superadditivity violation.
Wei-Xiang Sun, Zehong Wang, Hong Huang et al.· 0 citations
ForesightSafety-TIDE, a controlled evaluation framework that strictly pairs all-honest collaboration with controlled deception by a key evidence holder and analyzes the aggregation process through multi-stage voting, testimony adoption, and evidence-root lineage propagation, reveals both the fragility of distributed fact recovery and its underlying mechanism.
Chen Yan, Zeyang Yue, Feifei Zhao et al.· 2 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
