This study presents the first systematic comparison of four agent architectures, monolithic (Claude), chain-based (LangChain), multi-agent collaborative (CrewAI), and autonomous iterative (AutoGPT), across 200 controlled experiments spanning 50 journalism tasks of graduated difficulty, and positions architecture as a new structural level of gatekeeping.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence agents increasingly perform journalism tasks autonomously, searching for sources, evaluating credibility, and producing news content with minimal human oversight. Yet research has largely treated AI as a monolithic category, leaving the effects of architectural design unexamined. Drawing on gatekeeping theory, this study presents the first systematic comparison of four agent architectures, monolithic (Claude), chain-based (LangChain), multi-agent collaborative (CrewAI), and autonomous iterative (AutoGPT), across 200 controlled experiments spanning 50 journalism tasks of graduated difficulty. All architectures used the same underlying language model and identical tools, isolating architectural effects. Results revealed significant effects on task duration (F(3, 196) = 24.54, p<.001, eta-squared = .27) and computational strategy (F(3, 196) = 305.63, p<.001, eta-squared = .82), with architecture explaining 82% of the variance in processing behavior. Multi-agent collaboration achieved the highest accuracy (84.7%) at roughly twice the time cost of other designs. Multistage analysis of the monolithic architecture documented a 71.7% source rejection rate, a quantitative parallel to classic human gatekeeping, while framework-based systems obscured their filtering inside abstraction layers. Transparency emerged as an architectural choice: framework designs excelled at structured attribution, whereas monolithic and iterative designs produced superior methodological documentation. Findings position architecture as a new structural level of gatekeeping and offer evidence-based guidance for newsrooms: chain-based designs for speed, multi-agent for accuracy, monolithic for versatility, and iterative for auditability.
This chapter provides empirical validation of this book’s System-2 reasoning stack through a human–LLM collaborative attempt to prove the Collatz conjecture, showing that UCCT scope-coverage audits would have detected the false Gap Lemma, RCA trace-scope checking would have caught the 37.5% scope-error rate, and RLER s...
Unknown authors· System-2 Reasoning: From Sem...· 0 citations
AI-research agents, or autoresearch systems, combine language models with tools, search, evaluation, and iterative modification of research artifacts. Their public software ecology is hard to compare because repositories, papers, benchmarks, libraries, and companion artifacts are often counted as one population. We con...
The bottleneck is scientific judgment rather than coding, and genuine discovery remains out of reach, so TruthInsightBench makes this gap a measurable target.
Zhi-Bo Yang, Chen Zhang, Yue-Wei Zhang et al.· 2 citations
It is argued that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identifies explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.
This work operationalizes overclaiming as a final response that reports work that the agent's own transcript shows it did not do, for example, claiming to have read a file it never opened, showing that claims of completion can conceal substantive failures.
Scientific Agent Skills, an open library of 163 such procedures in 16 areas of practice, including genomics, cheminformatics, medical imaging, study design and scientific communication, is presented.
T. Kassis, Vinayak Agarwal, Yu-Huan He et al.· 3 citations· ⚡1
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.