mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Dynamic Governance of Multi-LLM Agent Systems for Collaborative Conversational Outcomes

arXiv 2608.11207 ↗First posted 25 Apr 2026cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

When two LLM agents with structurally opposed objectives interact across multiple turns, the absence of a shared goal function produces not competition but collapse: the visitor capitulates, the site agent stops varying its approach, and the conversation terminates without achieving either agent's stated objective. This paper asks whether a control-theoretic governance layer can substitute for that missing goal function. The Experience Orchestrator (EO) addresses this in a simulated financial services environment where a site agent guides a visitor toward advisor contact while the visitor maintains psychologically realistic resistance. EO governs the joint trajectory through three mechanisms: a Contextual Bandit (CB) that selects content arms calibrated from real-world web analytics, a PID controller that enforces behavioral consistency via dynamic schema constraints, and a POMDP belief tracker that maintains a probabilistic model of visitor intent. Across 60,000 simulations, EO achieves a +32 percentage point lift in high-intent advisor contact rate (78.1% vs. 46.1% over a naive LLM control), with CB variant selection accounting for 97% of between-factor outcome variance -- confirming that the governance policy, not environmental initial conditions, determines where trajectories end up. Persona-level analysis reveals two distinct regimes: for visitors with no natural inclination toward conversion, the governance layer is the difference between a functional system and a non-functional one; for visitors already near alignment, a naive LLM's empathetic defaults are largely sufficient. All findings are conditional on LLM-to-LLM simulation. The PID controller has not been calibrated against real human unpredictability, and validating EO on live traffic is the critical next step.

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 8 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2026.

Builds on

8 of 29 references.

References · 8

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2017Multi-Agent Actor-Critic for Mixed Cooperative-Competitive Environmentscited by 1,558
  3. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
  4. 2021Alignment of Language Agentscited by 168
  5. 2023Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agentscited by 154
  6. 2023LLMs-augmented Contextual Banditcited by 8
  7. 2025Survey: Multi-Armed Bandits Meet Large Language Modelscited by 7
  8. 2019Lessons from Contextual Bandit Learning in a Customer Support Botcited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Reinforcement Learning for LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems through Orchestration Traces
  2. 2025Beyond Frameworks: Unpacking Collaboration Strategies in Multi-Agent Systems
  3. 2026Leadership as Coordination Control: Behavioral Signatures and the Recovery-Advantage Boundary in Multi-Agent LLM Teams
  4. 2026Task-Aware Delegation Cues for LLM Agents
  5. 2026A Stackelberg Framework for Resource-Aware LLM Agents: Learning, Repair, and Conditional Guarantees
  6. 2026Can LLM Agents Sustain Long-Horizon Organizational Dynamics?
  7. 2025Collaborate, Deliberate, Evaluate: How LLM Alignment Affects Coordinated Multi-Agent Outcomes
  8. 2026Unified Context Evolution for LLM Agents