The paper investigates how scaling a team of small language‑model agents affects performance across different orchestration architectures. By testing eight architectures on five short‑answer benchmarks and an executable‑code benchmark, it finds that team scaling yields large gains on arithmetic word‑problem tasks but only modest improvements on multiple‑choice and code generation tasks, with no single architecture dominating all tasks. The authors explain these patterns using a generate‑transform decomposition that separates coverage and transformation effects, showing that arithmetic tasks benefit from both coverage and critic‑guided transformation, while other tasks are limited by saturation or poor conversion.
arXiv:2607. 25656v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Complex tasks often decompose into parallelizable yet interdependent subtasks, making orchestration critical to the performance of multi-agent systems (MAS).
arXiv:2607. 06764v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent progress on ARC-AGI-1 from disclosed architectures has come broadly from two regimes: heavy test-time compute over frontier models (evolutionary search, exhaustive sampling, extended chain-of-thought), or benchmark-specific training in which small models are fine-tuned on ARC data, often with task-specialized architectures.
arXiv:2606. 31174v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Production large language-model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed not as lone problem-solvers but as managers: a main model creates specialized subagents, delegates work, and orchestrates their parallel, asynchronous returns through dynamic workflows.
UniACE is a unified framework that standardizes the evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents by representing each benchmark as an instruction–tool–environment triplet and running models through a shared, task‑agnostic harness in isolated runtimes. It preserves native success criteria, offers an offline mode for dynamic‑resource tasks, and standardizes efficiency metrics, execution records, and failure attribution. Applying UniACE to 7 benchmarks across 24 domains and 15 models revealed significant score shifts, ranking reversals, and sensitivity to evidence representation, highlighting the impact of evaluation configuration on reported agent performance.
arXiv:2609.15309v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents allocate test-time compute adaptively as they revise solutions, use tools, explore alternatives, and decide when to s...
The paper evaluates a manager‑worker scaffold that uses a shared filesystem workspace to orchestrate multi‑agent large language model (LLM) coding tasks without training or tuning. Across nine models—including five open‑weight and four closed‑weight systems—the scaffold yields statistically significant accuracy gains for some models (e.g., Qwen3.8‑27B, GPT‑5.6‑Luna, GPT‑5.6‑Terra, Kimi‑K3, Minimax‑M3) while producing null or negative effects for others (e.g., Qwen3.6‑35B). The study shows that the manager can triple token usage but still achieves higher accuracy at a fraction of the cost compared to larger single‑pass models, with key mechanisms identified as context management and problem decomposition.
arXiv:2606. 00308v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large-language-model code generation has shifted from single-shot prompting to multi-agent orchestrations - analyst, coder, tester, and debugger pipelines - and is evaluated almost exclusively on functional correctness.
arXiv:2606. 01667v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling has become a major way to improve large language model reasoning, but its orchestration has remained designer-engineered: a fixed sample budget, a fixed refinement loop, a fixed scoring rule, or a fixed search policy decides how compute is spent, leaving the model in charge of solving but not of orchestration.
arXiv:2605. 28556v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As agent capabilities advance, existing benchmarks, such as $\tau^2$-Bench, are becoming increasingly saturated.
arXiv:2609.23790v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every node in a multi-agent large language model (LLM) workflow retrieves context from memory and injects it into its prompt, where those injected toke...
The paper demonstrates that the number of candidates generated during test-time scaling of large language models does not fully capture the system cost. By comparing different generation schedules (e.g., one batched call versus multiple serial calls) while keeping the total candidate count fixed, the authors show that serial calls consume significantly more GPU energy and latency. The study suggests that reporting candidate count alone is insufficient; evaluations should also include generation schedule and GPU-level metrics.
Test-time scaling has become a major way to improve large language model reasoning, but its orchestration has remained designer-engineered: a fixed sample budget, a fixed refinement loop, a fixed scoring rule, or a fixed search policy decides how compute is spent, leaving the model in charge of solving but not of orchestration. We introduce ATLAS, an agentic test-time scaling framework in which an LLM orchestrator owns the control loop end-to-end.