arXiv:2610.41044v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The use of large language models (LLMs) to coordinate multi-agent teams raises a fundamental architectural question: whether task allocation should be centralized in a single LLM controller or distributed across autonomous LLM agents, particularly when communication is unreliable. In a deliberately simplified perimeter-defense simulation against LLM-controlled intruders, we compared a central commander, an auction-based consensus team and independent agents under five network conditions. Breach rates were 15% for the consensus team, 32% for the commander and 29% for independent agents, and of the different network conditions, only limited radio range changed a team's breach rate, raising the commander's. In consensus team, giving a low-cost LLM more authority over the bid computation raised breaches by 38 percentage points. With birds and civilian drones in airspace, we added a photograph for each to the input text state. Only the near-frontier model treated them apart from intruders. Intruders disguised as existing taxidermy bird drones were mistook as birds by both low-cost and near-frontier LLMs, going unpursued in 59-61% of near-frontier decisions (1-16% before). However, a one-sentence forewarning in the prompt lowered it to 0-25%. We find that LLM team with a dedicated external conflict resolution protocol results in fewest breaches. Code: https://github.com/the-kas-lab/consensus-within-competition-between.
Retrieval Is Not a Safety Boundary: Poisoned-Corpus and Unsupported-Question Evaluation of a RAG Pipeline