Although artificial intelligence (AI) now matches or exceeds human performance across numerous cognitive tasks, creativity remains a highly contested frontier. As AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in research and innovation, it is essential to understand and augment their creativity. Here we demonstrate that multi-agent LLM teams not only surpass single agents, but also substantially outperform human teams in creativity (Cohen's d=1.50) across 4,541 multi-agent LLM ideas and 341 human-team ideas on six diverse problem-solving tasks. This advantage is driven by novelty while maintaining comparable usefulness. To investigate the generative processes in both groups, we represent conversations as paths through semantic space using neural language model representations. Both LLM and human teams produce more creative ideas when conversations range widely rather than staying centered on a single theme (low global coherence). However, the additional patterns that predict creativity differ: LLM teams benefit from efficient exploration (high semantic spread, shorter paths), while human teams benefit from maintaining smooth conversational flow (high local coherence, frequent pivots). Additionally, we identify model choice and discussion structure as orthogonal design levers that together explain 26.8% of variance in LLM conversational dynamics, paving the way for systematic approaches to developing multi-agent systems with augmented creative capabilities.
University of Washington（华盛顿大学）；Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence（艾伦人工智能研究所）；Carnegie Mellon University（卡内基梅隆大学）；University of British Columbia（不列颠哥伦比亚大学）；Vector Institute for AI（矢量人工智能研究所）；Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington（华盛顿大学保罗·G·艾伦计算机科学与工程学院）
AI large language models have (co-)produced amazing written works from newspaper articles to novels and poetry. These works meet the standards of the standard definition of creativity: being original and useful, and sometimes even the additional element of surprise. But can a large language model designed to predict the next text fragment provide creative, out-of-the-box, responses that still solve the problem at hand? We put Open AI's generative natural language model, GPT-3, to the test. Can it provide creative solutions to one of the most commonly used tests in creativity research? We asses…
Multi-agent reinforcement learning holds the key for solving complex tasks that demand the coordination of learning agents. However, strong coordination often leads to expensive exploration over the exponentially large state-action space. A powerful approach is to decompose team works into roles, which are ideally assigned to agents with the relevant skills. Training agents to adaptively choose and play emerging roles in a team thus allows the team to scale to complex tasks and quickly adapt to changing environments. These promises, however, have not been fully realised by current role-based m…
Nanyang Technological University（南洋理工大学）；Sun Yat-sen University（中山大学）；King’s College London（伦敦国王学院）；Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences（中国科学院自动化研究所）
Existing value-factorized based Multi-Agent deep Reinforce-ment Learning (MARL) approaches are well-performing invarious multi-agent cooperative environment under thecen-tralized training and decentralized execution(CTDE) scheme,where all agents are trained together by the centralized valuenetwork and each agent execute its policy independently. How-ever, an issue remains open: in the centralized training process,when the environment for the team is partially observable ornon-stationary, i.e., the observation and action informationof all the agents cannot represent the global states, existingm…
Adaptive In-conversation Team Building for Language Model Agents
University of Southern California（南加利福尼亚大学）；Pennsylvania State University（宾夕法尼亚州立大学）；University of Washington（华盛顿大学）；Waseda University（早稻田大学）；Google Deepmind（谷歌DeepMind）
Information sharing is key in building team cognition and enables coordination and cooperation. High-performing human teams also benefit from acting strategically with hierarchical levels of iterated communication and rationalizability, meaning a human agent can reason about the actions of their teammates in their decision-making. Yet, the majority of prior work in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) does not support iterated rationalizability and only encourage inter-agent communication, resulting in a suboptimal equilibrium cooperation strategy. In this work, we show that reformulating…
Modelling and exploiting teammates' policies in cooperative multi-agent systems have long been an interest and also a big challenge for the reinforcement learning (RL) community. The interest lies in the fact that if the agent knows the teammates' policies, it can adjust its own policy accordingly to arrive at proper cooperations; while the challenge is that the agents' policies are changing continuously due to they are learning concurrently, which imposes difficulty to model the dynamic policies of teammates accurately. In this paper, we present \emph{ATTention Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic …
Developing intelligent virtual characters has attracted a lot of attention in the recent years. The process of creating such characters often involves a team of creative authors who describe different aspects of the characters in natural language, and planning experts that translate this description into a planning domain. This can be quite challenging as the team of creative authors should diligently define every aspect of the character especially if it contains complex human-like behavior. Also a team of engineers has to manually translate the natural language description of a character's pe…
University of Washington（华盛顿大学）；Microsoft Research（微软研究院）；Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence（艾伦人工智能研究所）
Many researchers motivate explainable AI with studies showing that human-AI team performance on decision-making tasks improves when the AI explains its recommendations. However, prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. Can explanations help lead to complementary performance, where team accuracy is higher than either the human or the AI working solo? We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task (explaining itself in some c…
