arXiv AI

Do More Agents Help? Evaluating Accuracy and Cost in LLM Multi-Agent Workflows

The paper introduces BenchAgent, a framework for evaluating multi‑agent large language model (LLM) workflows against a single‑agent baseline, BenchAgent Core. Using GPT‑4.1 across ten reasoning, coding, and tool‑use benchmarks, the study compares six multi‑agent configurations, finding that EvoAgent achieves the highest mean pooled accuracy (79.70%) while other agents lag by 1.71–8.76 percentage points. The analysis also highlights trade‑offs in token consumption and accuracy, offering guidance for selecting and optimizing LLM multi‑agent workflows.

arXiv AI
Sep 2

UniACE: A Unified Framework for Evaluating LLM Agentic Capabilities

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.

By Pengyu Zhu, Lijun Li, Yaxing Lyu, Qianxin Luo, Jingyi Yang, Yi Liu, Tingfeng Hui, Xinyu Yuan, Li Sun, Sen Su, Jing Shao
arXiv AI
Oct 12

Humanize MLE Agents: Multi-Agent Session Alternation Beyond Single-Agent Limits

The paper introduces Humanize MLE Agents (HMA), a workflow that alternates two agents across sessions on a shared workspace, limiting each session to at most k experiments and resetting context between sessions. This approach, modeled as a context‑reset semi‑Markov decision process, outperforms single‑agent baselines, achieving a 78.2% any‑medal rate on 75 Kaggle MLE‑bench tasks—8.0 points higher than the best open‑source baseline and using only a quarter of its time budget. Across six heterogeneous agent pairs, HMA improves the any‑medal rate by an average of 6.4 points, and a supplementary kernel‑optimization case reaches 878 cycles, within 1.6% of the community leaderboard leader.

By Changye Li, Zijian Zhang, Muheng Li, Yiduo Pang, Tingjun Wu, Menghan Li, Yitong Liu, Hongkai Guo, Mengchi Chen, Chenyu He, Kaisheng Ma, Wei Xu, Song Han, Sihao Liu, Ligeng Zhu
arXiv AI
Oct 2

Pay for the Fault, Not the Flow: Label-Free In-Flow Multi-Agent Workflow Optimization

The paper introduces InFlowOp, a label‑free optimization framework that assigns costs to each decision in a multi‑agent workflow, balancing agent competence against execution time. It determines task granularity and agent assignment before execution and corrects faults during execution using the same cost metric. The authors also present Braid, a benchmark for multi‑agent coordination, and show that InFlowOp outperforms single‑agent baselines by up to 11.97% across various domains.

By Xuehang Guo, Haoyu Wang, Shengyu Chen, Zach Chen, Wei Cheng, Qingyun Wang, Haifeng Chen
arXiv AI
Jun 9

SWE-Marathon: Can Agents Autonomously Complete Ultra-Long-Horizon Software Work?

arXiv:2606. 07682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments.

By Rishi Desai, Jesse Hu, Joan Cabezas, Neel Harsola, Pratyush Shukla, Roey Ben Chaim, Adnan El Assadi, Omkaar Mukund Kamath, Fenil Faldu, Prannay Hebbar, Jiankai Sun, Yiyuan Li, Pramod Srinivasan, Ishan Gupta, Christopher Settles, Daniel Wang, Derek Chen, Pranav Raja, Albert Liu, Marek \v{S}uppa, Nevasini Sasikumar, Luyang Kong, Erik Quintanilla, Xiangyi Li, Ivan Bercovich, Steven Dillmann