Robo-Reporters: Evaluating Autonomous AI Agents as Algorithmic Gatekeepers in Computational Journalism
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Artificial intelligence agents increasingly perform journalism tasks autonomously, searching for sources, evaluating credibility, and producing news content with minimal human oversight. Yet research has largely treated AI as a monolithic category, leaving the effects of architectural design unexamined. Drawing on gatekeeping theory, this study presents the first systematic comparison of four agent architectures, monolithic (Claude), chain-based (LangChain), multi-agent collaborative (CrewAI), and autonomous iterative (AutoGPT), across 200 controlled experiments spanning 50 journalism tasks of graduated difficulty. All architectures used the same underlying language model and identical tools, isolating architectural effects. Results revealed significant effects on task duration (F(3, 196) = 24.54, p < .001, eta-squared = .27) and computational strategy (F(3, 196) = 305.63, p < .001, eta-squared = .82), with architecture explaining 82% of the variance in processing behavior. Multi-agent collaboration achieved the highest accuracy (84.7%) at roughly twice the time cost of other designs. Multistage analysis of the monolithic architecture documented a 71.7% source rejection rate, a quantitative parallel to classic human gatekeeping, while framework-based systems obscured their filtering inside abstraction layers. Transparency emerged as an architectural choice: framework designs excelled at structured attribution, whereas monolithic and iterative designs produced superior methodological documentation. Findings position architecture as a new structural level of gatekeeping and offer evidence-based guidance for newsrooms: chain-based designs for speed, multi-agent for accuracy, monolithic for versatility, and iterative for auditability.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jul 2026.
Builds on
5 of 44 references.
References · 5
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,552
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,395
- 2023Cognitive Architectures for Language Agentscited by 429
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025How can AI agents support journalists' work? An experiment with designing an LLM-driven intelligent reporting system
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap
- 2025Benchmarking Agentic Newswriting via Journalistic Workflows
- 2025Imitating AI agents increase diversity in homogeneous information environments but can reduce it in heterogeneous ones
- 2026An Empirical Study of Multi-Agent Collaboration for Automated Research
- 2026FARS: A Fully Automated Research System Deployed at Scale
- 2026Social Simulacra in the Wild: AI Agent Communities on Moltbook
- 2024Persona Inconstancy in Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration: Conformity, Confabulation, and Impersonation