# Collaborative Spatial Learning with Multi-LLM Agents in Networked Social Experiments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14574 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.14574/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 11 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08399/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02083/) (2023)
- [Can large language models explore in-context?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15371/) (2024)
- [Wisdom of the Silicon Crowd: LLM Ensemble Prediction Capabilities Rival Human Crowd Accuracy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19379/) (2024)
- [Network Formation and Dynamics Among Multi-LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10659/) (2024)
- [Social learning strategies modify the effect of network structure on group performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.00753/) (2016)
- [Should You Use Your Large Language Model to Explore or Exploit?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00225/) (2025)
- [Comparing Exploration-Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-armed Bandit Experiments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09901/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Collective problem solving often requires that group members consider the tradeoff between exploitation of known solutions and exploration for new ones, where information of known solutions can be disseminated among individual members through communication networks. The Mason--Watts experiment (PNAS 2012) showed that human groups in shorter-path networks outperform those in longer-path networks on a two-dimensional search task. In this work, we focus on the investigation of such network-efficiency effects in the setting of a group of large language model (LLM) agents. Specifically, we consider groups of sixteen LLM agents playing the Mason--Watts experiment on the eight Mason--Watts network topologies. Moreover, we develop mechanistic Bayesian optimization agents such that the performance of LLM agents can be compared with both the mechanistic agents and the human experimental data. Our computational experiments indicate that the LLM agents show a significant network-efficiency effect when instructed to randomize their first-round choices, but not under the default initialization. In this experiment, adding a one-sentence first-round randomization instruction improves collective payoff by more than three times the estimated payoff difference across the eight network topologies. Also, the Bayesian optimization agents obtain higher payoffs than the evaluated LLM agents on this spatial search task. We further compare the agents' exploration--exploitation behavior, copying, and spatial diversity.