SwarmWorld: Stigmergic technological evolution in societies of language-model agents

Collective intelligence can emerge when individuals coordinate through a shared environment, allowing local actions to accumulate into durable social organization. Language-model agents offer a new substrate for this process, yet most multi-agent systems rely on direct conversation, predefined roles, or centralized workflows. It remains unclear whether decentralized agents can build functional technologies and outperform independent search. Here, initially homogeneous LLM agents in SwarmWorld self-organize without assigned roles or recipes into evolving technological societies. Agents explore a spatial environment, process resources, test materials, construct persistent artifacts, and write executable controllers evaluated by a deterministic simulator under unseen disturbances after the agents are removed. SwarmWorld splits cognition from consequence: agents propose architectures and controllers within fixed action and material schemas, while the simulated world determines function. Shared societies develop broader, more resilient technological portfolios than a strong best-of-N isolated-search baseline, although isolated search remains competitive for the strongest artifact. Agents differentiate into exploration, construction, maintenance, and coordination behaviors, transitioning as the world matures. Technologies accumulate through collaborative construction, executable inheritance, and persistent agent-artifact networks, with most reuse beginning through physical observation rather than communication. Explicit cultural mechanisms amplify collaboration and organization, but functional benefits depend on outcome and timescale. Physical stigmergy alone supports capable societies, while interaction drives persistent technological ecologies rather than universally superior individual inventions.

Artificial collectives of specialists and generalists excel at different tasks

Collective artificial intelligence, where multiple agents work on shared tasks, holds potential to solve expansive problems in fields from medicine to collective governance. But while prescriptive engineering solutions abound, we lack descriptive scientific understanding of artificial collectives, and therefore principles for how to design resource efficient multi-agent systems. Through systematic experiments with optimizing agents, we characterize how agent interpretive abilities, rationality bounds, and task qualities interact to shape collective performance. Agents range from specialists, with narrow interpretive abilities, to generalists, with broad ones. Collectives of specialists correspond to sparse, centralized networks, while collectives of generalists correspond to dense, decentralized ones. We show that interpretive network properties have small performance effects on average (0.07 standard deviations of performance). However, for specific task qualities, these effects are 4.5 times larger (0.33 sd) and can reach much higher for certain task qualities (1.84 sd). This leads collectives of generalists to perform better on tasks that involve generating, choosing, and coordinating, while collectives of specialists with a few generalist mediators perform better on tasks that involve negotiating. Rationality bounds then moderate these relationships. At loose bounds, specialists outperform generalists through more effective sampling of high-dimensional decision spaces. At tight bounds, generalists outperform specialists through better gradient estimation. A fundamental trade-off between performance and convergence speed emerges at moderate bounds. These findings suggest that multi-agent design could benefit from matching interpretive networks to both task demands and agents' computational limits, with implications for the efficiency and energy costs of multi-agent systems.

When Agents Evolve, Institutions Follow

Across millennia, complex societies have faced the same coordination problem of how to organize collective action among cognitively bounded and informationally incomplete individuals. Different civilizations developed different political institutions to answer the same basic questions of who proposes, who reviews, who executes, and how errors are corrected. We argue that multi-agent systems built on large language models face the same challenge. Their central problem is not only individual intelligence, but collective organization. Historical institutions therefore provide a structured design space for multi-agent architectures, making key trade-offs between efficiency and error correction, centralization and distribution, and specialization and redundancy empirically testable. We translate seven historical political institutions, spanning four canonical governance patterns, into executable multi-agent architectures and evaluate them under identical conditions across three large language models and two benchmarks. We find that governance topology strongly shapes collective performance. Within a single model, the gap between the best and worst institution exceeds 57 percentage points, while the optimal architecture shifts systematically with model capability and task characteristics. These results suggest that collective intelligence will not advance through a single optimal organizational form, but through governance mechanisms that can be reselected and reconfigured as tasks and capabilities evolve. More broadly, this points to a transition from \textbf{self-evolving agents} to the \textbf{self-evolving multi-agent system}. The code is available on \href{https://github.com/cf3i/SocialSystemArena}{GitHub}.