arXiv:2603. 20324v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM pipelines produce contradictory evidence on whether team diversity improves output quality: heterogeneous Mixture-of-Agents teams outperform single models, yet homogeneous Self-MoA teams consistently win under synthesis-based aggregation.
arXiv:2608.23541v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Does multi-agent LLM interaction help or hurt? Some work reports gains from debate (Du et al., 2024), critique loops (Chen et al., 2025), and mixture...
arXiv:2609.38274v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The performance ceiling of an LLM team is constrained not only by individual model capabilities, but also by inter-member error resonance and predictiv...
arXiv:2606. 01490v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present a controlled experiment evaluating 12 multi-agent LLM collaboration topologies for software architecture design.
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.
The paper introduces Steiner’s taxonomy of group tasks to study how multi‑agent large language model (LLM) teams scale on disjunctive versus compensatory tasks. By modeling agents as conditionally independent given the item, it shows that plurality voting converges to the modal answer while averaging converges to the item‑level bias. Experiments with 13 open‑weight models and up to 30 agents reveal that disjunctive tasks benefit from larger teams, whereas compensatory tasks like Fermi estimation see little improvement, highlighting that task structure and aggregation method fundamentally determine team scaling.
arXiv:2609.38816v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While multi-agent and model collaboration algorithms gain traction to combine the strengths of diverse Large Language Models (LLMs), existing systems r...
Multi-agent Systems (MAS) combine multiple model outputs to solve complex reasoning tasks. However, despite rapid growth of available open-source models, there is limited research on how to select opt...
The study evaluates multi‑agent debate (MAD) in small language models, testing whether cognitive diversity—via personas, sampling temperature, or model identity—drives performance gains. Across 23 models, five tasks, and over 5,500 runs, MAD consistently outperforms single‑model inference but, when matched for generation budget, it ties or falls behind self‑consistency sampling, with persona prompting actually reducing accuracy. The authors find that MAD’s benefits largely stem from the first answer exchange and that many reported gains are due to ensemble‑sampling effects rather than true diversity, highlighting the need for budget‑matched, contamination‑checked baselines. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that MAD’s perceived advantages may be overestimated and that future debate mechanisms must be evaluated against rigorous, budget‑matched baselines to ensure genuine performance improvements."
Agent evaluations increasingly benchmark LLMs, but rankings can be swayed by evaluation conditions such as scaffolds or tasks, making reliability claim‑dependent. A Bayesian variance‑decomposition framework applied to 22 benchmarks shows that reliability varies with the measurement goal: fixed model‑scaffold systems rank reliably, while underlying‑model rankings are less stable. Scaffold choice can alter conclusions, and adding more tasks only modestly improves reliability when scaffold coverage is limited; however, pooling diverse benchmarks can substantially raise cross‑task ranking reliability and reduce cost.
The paper investigates how to choose model pools for Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) that combine multiple model outputs to tackle complex reasoning tasks. It evaluates eight selection strategies—such as model size, accuracy, and answer diversity—across both before-generation (routing) and after-generation (majority-voting, LLM-as-a-judge) MAS architectures on scientific benchmarks. The study finds that expanding the candidate pool often harms performance, that selecting candidates within a single model family yields the best relative gains, and that indiscriminate addition of heterogeneous models can destabilize the system.
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.
arXiv:2608. 09629v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-evolving agents are usually built around prescribed optimization pipelines: the framework decides how to gather evidence, revise a persistent artifact, select candidates, and stop.