mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Stress Becomes Signal: Detecting Antifragility-Compatible Regimes in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

arXiv 2605.02463 ↗First posted 4 May 2026cs.MA cs.AI cs.CEcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly used to solve complex tasks through decomposition, debate, specialization, and ensemble reasoning. However, these systems are usually evaluated in terms of robustness: whether performance is preserved under perturbation. This paper studies a different question: whether semantic stress exposes structured variation that could support future antifragile learning. We introduce CAFE (Cognitive Antifragility Framework for Evaluation), a statistical framework for detecting antifragility-compatible regimes in multi-agent architectures. CAFE models a controlled expected distribution of semantic stressors, reconstructs an architecture-specific observed effective stress distribution from multi-dimensional judge signals, and compares both distributions using a distributional Jensen Gap under a convex stress potential. A positive gap does not imply immediate performance improvement; instead, it indicates a convex-expansive deformation of the observed stress distribution, suggesting that the architecture exposes learnable stress structure. We evaluate CAFE on a banking-risk analysis benchmark with five multi-agent architectures: flat, hierarchical, debate, meta-adaptive, and ensemble. Across all architectures, semantic stress reduces average judged quality by roughly one third. Yet all architectures exhibit positive distributional Jensen Gaps with bootstrap confidence intervals above zero. These results show that immediate quality degradation can coexist with statistically detectable antifragility-compatible stress geometry. CAFE is therefore not an antifragile learner itself, but a measurement layer for identifying when and where antifragility learning may be worth applying.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 20 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 May 2026.

Builds on

20 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges21 Jan
  2. 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework1 Aug
  3. 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society31 Mar

Other references · 17

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  4. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  5. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  6. 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
  7. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
  8. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  9. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
  10. 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,739
  11. 2023LongBench: A Bilingual, Multitask Benchmark for Long Context Understandingcited by 1,378
  12. 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,362
5 more
  1. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,151
  2. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 983
  3. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  4. 2020AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questionscited by 385
  5. 2021Robustness Gym: Unifying the NLP Evaluation Landscapecited by 107

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Multi-agent Scaling Across Disjunctive and Compensatory Tasks
  2. 2026World Model Science: Self-Organized Criticality, Weak Chaos, and Metastable Belief Dynamics in Long-Horizon LLM Agents
  3. 2025C3-Bench: The Things Real Disturbing LLM based Agent in Multi-Tasking
  4. 2025On the Importance of Task Complexity in Evaluating LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
  5. 2025Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectiveness
  6. 2026Stress Testing Concept Erasure with Large Language Model Agents
  7. 2026A Theory of LLM Information Susceptibility
  8. 2026Early-Token Confidence Predicts Reasoning Quality in Multi-Agent LLM Debate