Relative benefits of single-agent versus multi-agent thought exchanges

Determine whether readers engaged in critical academic paper reading benefit more from one-on-one conversations with a single AI agent or from simulated group thought exchanges with multiple AI agents that contribute diverse viewpoints.

Background

The paper motivates comparing single-agent and multi-agent formats for agent-mediated thought exchange during academic paper reading. Prior research suggests single-agent settings may be more usable but risk focusing on a single line of thought, whereas multi-agent settings can emulate group discussion by presenting competing viewpoints and diverse reasoning. Despite these indications, the relative benefit of the two formats for critical reading had not been clearly established, prompting this explicit question.