When Does Communication Help? Beyond Spectral Descriptions of Collective Intelligence

Abstract

Communication can bring agents into agreement while making their decisions worse. We identify two limits of aggregate descriptions of communication gain in distributed inference. First, stable linear systems with fixed evidence, network and readout can have interaction and finite-time state operators with identical eigenvalue and singular-value spectra, yet produce gains of opposite sign. Changing only message orientation raises accuracy from 72.6% to 91.2% or lowers it to 65.9%. A standard task-projected local-response approximation retains the directional information missing from spectral summaries. Using labeled calibration data separate from the test set, it predicts multi-round gains in small trained nonlinear agents with a root-mean-square error of 0.45 percentage points on two synthetic tasks; tests with natural edge changes and handwritten digits extend the evaluation. Second, under community-shared bias, higher mean individual accuracy can coexist with harm to unaffected communities or lower global-vote accuracy. At fixed communication rounds, calibration constraints reduce observed community harm while retaining much of the mean benefit, but do not guarantee protection. Full direct calibration performs similarly. The results connect spectral insufficiency, task-aware prediction and the distribution of communication benefits, while leaving broad transfer and practical superiority open.