# Interpreting Emergent Extreme Events in Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20538 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20538/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 24 of its 48 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.04150/) (2015)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Emergent Tool Use From Multi-Agent Autocurricula](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.07528/) (2019)
- [Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00212/) (2025)
- [EconAgent: Large Language Model-Empowered Agents for Simulating Macroeconomic Activities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10436/) (2023)
- [OASIS: Open Agent Social Interaction Simulations with One Million Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.11581/) (2024)
- [AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03312/) (2025)
- [CompeteAI: Understanding the Competition Dynamics in Large Language Model-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17512/) (2023)
- [TwinMarket: A Scalable Behavioral and Social Simulation for Financial Markets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01506/) (2025)
- [Decoding Echo Chambers: LLM-Powered Simulations Revealing Polarization in Social Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19338/) (2024)
- [Who is Introducing the Failure? Automatically Attributing Failures of Multi-Agent Systems via Spectrum Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.13782/) (2025)
- [Statistical Consequences of Fat Tails: Real World Preasymptotics, Epistemology, and Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.10488/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Attributing Emergence in Million-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11404/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model-powered multi-agent systems have emerged as powerful tools for simulating complex human-like systems. The interactions within these systems often lead to extreme events whose origins remain obscured by the black box of emergence. Interpreting these events is critical for system safety. This paper proposes the first framework for explaining emergent extreme events in multi-agent systems, aiming to answer three fundamental questions: When does the event originate? Who drives it? And what behaviors contribute to it? Specifically, we adapt the Shapley value to faithfully attribute the occurrence of extreme events to each action taken by agents at different time steps, i.e., assigning an attribution score to the action to measure its influence on the event. We then aggregate the attribution scores along the dimensions of time, agent, and behavior to quantify the risk contribution of each dimension. Finally, we design a set of metrics based on these contribution scores to characterize the features of extreme events. Experiments across diverse multi-agent system scenarios (economic, financial, and social) demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework and provide general insights into the emergence of extreme phenomena.