arXiv AI By Guo Chen, Ziwen Li, Reed Li, Yu Lu, Haibo Shi, Bingbing Xu, Junjie Huang

ForestBench: A Unified Graph Framework for Evaluating Multi-Agent Collaboration

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 08605v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent systems (MAS) built on Large Language Models (LLMs) are proliferating rapidly, but their heterogeneous execution traces provide no common basis for evaluation across methods.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 18

Rethinking Multi-Agent Collaboration: When More Is Less

The paper examines when multi‑agent collaboration is beneficial versus single‑agent approaches. It finds that collaboration yields systematic advantages mainly in long‑horizon tasks with sparse dependencies, while single agents perform better in tightly coupled, sequential workflows. The authors introduce SAIGE, a lightweight multi‑agent mechanism that models collaboration as a dynamically evolving graph, and show that it balances context efficiency and task performance without always improving outcomes as more agents are added.

By Yishuo Yuan, Yibo Wu, Yihan Zhang, Minyuan Sun, Shenliang Li, Xinkai Ma, Yifan Li, Jiaheng Liu
arXiv AI
Sep 3

UniToolCall: Unifying Tool-Use Representation, Data, and Evaluation for LLM Agents

UniToolCall introduces a unified framework for tool-use in large language model agents, standardizing toolset construction, dataset generation, and evaluation. The framework aggregates over 22,000 tools and creates a hybrid training corpus of more than 390,000 instances by combining ten public datasets with synthetically generated, structurally controlled trajectories. It models diverse interaction patterns—single‑hop vs. multi‑hop, single‑turn vs. multi‑turn, serial vs. parallel execution—and adds an Anchor Linkage mechanism to enforce cross‑turn dependencies, while converting seven public benchmarks into a common Query–Action–Observation–Answer format for fine‑grained evaluation.

By Yijuan Liang, Xinghao Chen, Yifan Ge, Ziyi Wu, Hao Wu, Changyu Zeng, Wei Xing, Xiaoyu Shen