mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Human Thinking under Plural LLM Assistance: Mathematical Problem Solving and Open-Ended Writing

arXiv 2604.02677 ↗First posted 3 Apr 2026cs.HC cs.CYcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are changing not only the kind of assistance people receive, but also how that assistance is organized. Instead of working with a single general-purpose chatbot, people can now receive help from systems arranged as peers, specialists, or multiple agents with distinct roles. However, it remains unclear how these forms of plural LLM assistance affect human performance, confidence, and diversity of thought. We conducted two controlled experiments involving 562 participants to examine the effects of using multiple LLMs on mathematical problem-solving and writing. In a math task, participants worked with no LLM, an expert assistant, peer-like agents that surfaced common errors, or both an expert and a peer-like assistant. The expert-plus-peer condition produced the strongest unassisted post-task performance. In a writing task, participants wrote with no LLM, a single generalist assistant, or a pair of role-specialized assistants. LLM assistance improved essay quality, but the role-specialized pair preserved greater idea diversity than the single assistant. Together, these findings identify the arrangement of LLM assistance as a consequential design variable for human-AI collaboration.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 12 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2026.

Builds on

12 of 57 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on Divergent and Convergent Thinking24 Sep

Other references · 11

  1. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
  2. 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,348
  3. 2022CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilitiescited by 245
  4. 2023Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?cited by 190
  5. 2024Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideationcited by 127
  6. 2023The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AIcited by 85
  7. 2026The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Modelscited by 76
  8. 2024"I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trustcited by 67
  9. 2025Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistenciescited by 39
  10. 2023Impact of Guidance and Interaction Strategies for LLM Use on Learner Performance and Perceptioncited by 19
  11. 2025A Taxonomy of Linguistic Expressions That Contribute To Anthropomorphism of Language Technologiescited by 14

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Enhancing LLM Problem Solving via Tutor-Student Multi-Agent Interaction
  2. 2024Assessing the Creativity of LLMs in Proposing Novel Solutions to Mathematical Problems
  3. 2026From Process Loss to Assembly Bonus: Human-Grounded Diagnosis of Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration
  4. 2024Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through Edits
  5. 2025CogMath: Assessing LLMs' Authentic Mathematical Ability from a Human Cognitive Perspective
  6. 2024Self-Reflection in LLM Agents: Effects on Problem-Solving Performance
  7. 2023Unleashing the Emergent Cognitive Synergy in Large Language Models: A Task-Solving Agent through Multi-Persona Self-Collaboration
  8. 2025Temperature and Persona Shape LLM Agent Consensus With Minimal Accuracy Gains in Qualitative Coding