Bregman Consensus

Andrei N. Soklakov

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.35930

Bregman Consensus

Andrei N. Soklakov

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Consider a community of agents who are seeking consensus on a set of parameters. The agents agree to use the same Bregman-type divergence to quantify disagreement between their individual estimates of the parameters but have varying confidence in each other's abilities. Each agent is happy to revise their estimate by moving to the weighted barycenter of all individual estimates with higher weights applied to more trusted agents. We show that such revisions naturally lead to an iterative algorithm which converges to a unique consensus estimate of the parameters. Furthermore, since the consensus estimate is itself a barycenter with computable weights, the group emerges as a collective super-agent with a well-formed opinion regarding the ability of each individual agent.

Explore related subjects

cs.MA cs.IT cs.LG math.IT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Andrei N. Soklakov. 2026-09-28. Bregman Consensus. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35930

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Misinformation Propagation in Benign Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are credited with solving complex problems, yet their agents routinely act on context that may be false. Prior work shows single LLMs are swayed by false context, and MAS can be compromised by adversarial agents persuading peers. We study the benign case: agents follow one protocol, none intends to deceive, but some read a misleading passage. We study it with MINT, 10,278 LLM-written misinformation passages in eight styles, testing three open-weight models on commonsense reasoning, knowledge QA, and moral judgment. A relevant false passage costs a single agent 0.12-0.43 accuracy; irrelevant or content-free passages typically cost at most 0.06. Debate looks robust because uninformed agents outnumber misinformed ones. With one of three misinformed, it is no better than choosing the majority over equally exposed independent samples. Interaction helps only with a misinformed majority, recovering up to 0.24 accuracy over voting (0.29 under consensus). A one-sentence unreliability warning recovers up to 0.18 accuracy under voting (0.28 under consensus), at no significant cost under voting when context is true. Robustness should be judged against exposure-matched baselines, with prompt-level skepticism as cheap first defense.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

SoftwareGym: Scaling Computer-Use Agent Training with Diverse Synthesized Software Environments

Computer-use agents (CUAs) are rapidly improving, yet synthesizing diverse and reliable software environments at scale remains challenging. Native application environments require substantial construction and integration effort, which limits application coverage and increases the risk of application-specific overfitting. Browser-hosted environments provide limited interaction depth and workflow complexity. These limitations motivate SoftwareGym, an automated pipeline for synthesizing GUI software environments with diverse interfaces, executable functionality, and runtime-verified behavior. It generates structurally diverse designs, realizes them as runnable applications, and uses GUI evaluation with iterative repair to ensure functional reliability. Using SoftwareGym, we synthesize 182 applications across twelve categories and achieve a mean GUI task pass rate of 91.5%. We construct SoftwareGym-Bench, a 120-task evaluation suite spanning the same twelve categories, and use trajectories collected from these environments for CUA training. The resulting model improves Pass@3 from 41.39% to 56.97% on the strictly out-of-domain OSWorld benchmark and achieves 40.0% on SoftwareGym-Bench. These results demonstrate the potential of synthesized software environments as scalable and transferable supervision for CUA training.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

When AI Advisors Agree: Distinguishing Forecast Risk from Forecast Reliability

If seven AI advisors agree, what have we learned: that their forecast is reliable, or that the asset is easier to forecast? We examine 928 completed first-quarter outcomes for 232 assets across four historical iPulse AI batches. Ten Gemini configurations form seven equally weighted investment frameworks; no forecasts are regenerated. The council has mean absolute return error of 15.15 percentage points (pp), versus 14.99 for no change, with an unresolved paired difference of +0.16 pp. Error rises from 10.31 to 21.05 pp across disagreement quartiles, but the no-change baseline rises almost identically, from 9.89 to 21.15. In the pooled archive, selecting the lowest-volatility quarter produces lower error than selecting the least-disagreeing quarter: 7.97 versus 10.31 pp. Directional agreement introduces a second trap: its apparent value depends on the aggregation rule. When at least six of seven frameworks share a direction, the sign of their mean return is correct in 53.21% of cases, versus 44.11% with lower agreement. Scoring the modal direction instead changes the lower-agreement accuracy to 54.27%, removing that positive contrast. Recomputed-rank bootstraps, scale-aware losses, and period sensitivities qualify these descriptive results; four overlapping periods cannot establish future-regime performance. Agreement, visible asset risk, and aggregation-specific skill should be evaluated separately before consensus is presented as confidence.

cs.MA↗