🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the challenge of arbitrating concurrent actions among LLM agents by proposing a joint strategy based on typed snapshot settlement contracts. Methodologically, it introduces a space-order-invariant proposal mechanism and conducts full-state log auditing through exhaustive permutation trials and multi-step episode simulations to evaluate order sensitivity, valid progress, and replay consistency. Experimental results demonstrate that a randomized ticket strategy improves task completion rates by 59.03% over a conservative rejection baseline. Furthermore, the approach successfully replays 156 checkpoints while intercepting 1,332 constructed errors, thereby achieving highly reliable concurrent execution alongside precise corruption rejection.
📝 Abstract
Concurrent actions in large language model (LLM) agent environments require arbitration even when each proposal is individually valid. We implement a typed snapshot-settlement contract and audit three distinct properties: order sensitivity, useful progress, and replay consistency. Five settlement policies are tested in 28,800 exhaustive permutation trials and 2,160 scripted multistep episodes. Joint policies are spatially order-invariant conditional on fixed priorities, yet conservative rejection completes only 31.25% of agents in a six-agent doorway task versus 90.28% for random tickets; the paired improvement is 59.03 percentage points (95% bootstrap interval: 50.00-68.06). All policies preserve the tested spatial constraints, and priority arbitration still misses the independent small-instance optimum. A separate full-state journal audit exactly replays 156 checkpoints and rejects 1,332 constructed corruptions with a retained terminal anchor. The evidence concerns execution semantics, not human realism or long-run fairness.