@inproceedings{tak-etal-2026-process,
title = "From Process Loss to Assembly Bonus: Human-Grounded Diagnosis of Multi-Agent {LLM} Collaboration",
author = "Tak, Ala N. and
Misu, Teruhisa and
Akash, Kumar and
Zheng, Zhaobo and
Joo, Kevin and
Gratch, Jonathan",
editor = "Lee, Hung-Yi and
Dev, Sunipa and
Li, Jessy and
Elliott, Desmond",
booktitle = "Findings of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics: {EMNLP} 2026",
month = oct,
year = "2026",
address = "Budapest, Hungary",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.findings-emnlp.1341/",
pages = "28425--28447",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-462-0",
abstract = "LLM agents are increasingly used for collaborative problem solving and human-group simulation. This makes outcome-only evaluation insufficient: if LLM groups are used as models of human groups, we need to know whether they succeed or fail through human-like deliberative mechanisms. We compare human group chats with matched LLM deliberation traces on Wason-style deductive reasoning, then test whether the same process signatures generalize to analogical, abductive, and analytical tasks. Humans and LLMs show the same assembly bonus asymmetry: discussion improves the average member more often than the best initial member. Initial-answer diversity accounts for the effect of model heterogeneity, increasing movement in both corrective and destructive directions. The main differences are process-level. Compared with humans, LLM groups follow majorities more often, surface less unique information, and converge earlier; correct minority signals succeed mainly when re-expressed early. Interventions motivated by human group-decision research yield modest improvements in collective outcomes, but do not remove the coordination bottleneck. Together, these results suggest that LLM groups can reproduce some outcome-level patterns of human deliberation while diverging in the mechanisms that generate assembly bonus and process loss, with implications for human-group simulation and human-AI collaboration."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="tak-etal-2026-process">
<titleInfo>
<title>From Process Loss to Assembly Bonus: Human-Grounded Diagnosis of Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ala</namePart>
<namePart type="given">N</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Tak</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Teruhisa</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Misu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kumar</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Akash</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Zhaobo</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zheng</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kevin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Joo</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jonathan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gratch</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-10</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2026</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Hung-Yi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lee</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sunipa</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Dev</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jessy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Li</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Desmond</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Elliott</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Budapest, Hungary</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-462-0</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>LLM agents are increasingly used for collaborative problem solving and human-group simulation. This makes outcome-only evaluation insufficient: if LLM groups are used as models of human groups, we need to know whether they succeed or fail through human-like deliberative mechanisms. We compare human group chats with matched LLM deliberation traces on Wason-style deductive reasoning, then test whether the same process signatures generalize to analogical, abductive, and analytical tasks. Humans and LLMs show the same assembly bonus asymmetry: discussion improves the average member more often than the best initial member. Initial-answer diversity accounts for the effect of model heterogeneity, increasing movement in both corrective and destructive directions. The main differences are process-level. Compared with humans, LLM groups follow majorities more often, surface less unique information, and converge earlier; correct minority signals succeed mainly when re-expressed early. Interventions motivated by human group-decision research yield modest improvements in collective outcomes, but do not remove the coordination bottleneck. Together, these results suggest that LLM groups can reproduce some outcome-level patterns of human deliberation while diverging in the mechanisms that generate assembly bonus and process loss, with implications for human-group simulation and human-AI collaboration.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">tak-etal-2026-process</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.findings-emnlp.1341/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-10</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>28425</start>
<end>28447</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T From Process Loss to Assembly Bonus: Human-Grounded Diagnosis of Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration
%A Tak, Ala N.
%A Misu, Teruhisa
%A Akash, Kumar
%A Zheng, Zhaobo
%A Joo, Kevin
%A Gratch, Jonathan
%Y Lee, Hung-Yi
%Y Dev, Sunipa
%Y Li, Jessy
%Y Elliott, Desmond
%S Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2026
%D 2026
%8 October
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Budapest, Hungary
%@ 979-8-89176-462-0
%F tak-etal-2026-process
%X LLM agents are increasingly used for collaborative problem solving and human-group simulation. This makes outcome-only evaluation insufficient: if LLM groups are used as models of human groups, we need to know whether they succeed or fail through human-like deliberative mechanisms. We compare human group chats with matched LLM deliberation traces on Wason-style deductive reasoning, then test whether the same process signatures generalize to analogical, abductive, and analytical tasks. Humans and LLMs show the same assembly bonus asymmetry: discussion improves the average member more often than the best initial member. Initial-answer diversity accounts for the effect of model heterogeneity, increasing movement in both corrective and destructive directions. The main differences are process-level. Compared with humans, LLM groups follow majorities more often, surface less unique information, and converge earlier; correct minority signals succeed mainly when re-expressed early. Interventions motivated by human group-decision research yield modest improvements in collective outcomes, but do not remove the coordination bottleneck. Together, these results suggest that LLM groups can reproduce some outcome-level patterns of human deliberation while diverging in the mechanisms that generate assembly bonus and process loss, with implications for human-group simulation and human-AI collaboration.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.findings-emnlp.1341/
%P 28425-28447
Markdown (Informal)
[From Process Loss to Assembly Bonus: Human-Grounded Diagnosis of Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration](https://aclanthology.org/2026.findings-emnlp.1341/) (Tak et al., Findings 2026)
ACL