Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Orchestrator: Active Inference for Multi-Agent Systems in Long-Horizon Tasks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Orchestrator claims that a lightweight multi-agent LLM system coordinated by an active-inference free-energy signal solves long-horizon mazes at up to 100% success on medium 18x18 mazes and 76.67% on hard 25x25 mazes, outperforming solo…

desk verdict The active-inference engine in this paper cannot run as written—the epistemic term is always negative—but the engineering scaffolding and honest negative result make it worth a referee's time. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05651 v1 pith:DJHGFEJN submitted 2025-09-06 cs.MA cs.AI

Lukas Beckenbauer , Johannes-Lucas Loewe , Ge Zheng , Alexandra Brintrup This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MAcs.AI
keywords activeinferencemulti-agentsystemslargelanguagemodelsvariationalfreeenergylong-horizontasksmazesolvingpartialobservabilityorchestration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a cheap multi-agent LLM system can be coordinated through active inference, monitoring each agent's variational free energy, the balance between information gain and behavioral cost, rather than relying on larger models or hand-coded plans. On procedurally generated mazes of increasing size, the Orchestrator framework reports near-perfect success on medium 18x18 mazes (100% for one small model, 83% for another) and up to 76.67% on hard 25x25 mazes, versus 0–30% for solo agents. The claim matters because it suggests long-horizon, partially observable coordination problems do not require expensive reasoning models: a lightweight monitoring loop plus two small LLMs may suffice. The paper also reports that the free-energy benchmark alone, without an orchestrator node, already lifts success rates substantially, and that adding orchestration can hurt on the hardest mazes because of reasoning overhead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operational variational free energy $F_n(t,k) = U_{\text{epistemic}}(n,t,k) - C_{\text{accuracy}}(n,t,k)$, where $U_{\text{epistemic}} = -H[S_{n,t,k} \mid S_{n-1,t-1,k-1}]$ is the negative Shannon entropy of the agent's message tokens (interpreted as realized information gain) and $C_{\text{accuracy}}$ is an equally weighted sum of five risk components: movement efficiency, exploration efficiency, backtracking patterns, dead-end recognition, and oscillation avoidance. Thresholds $\vartheta_1 = 0.6$ and $\vartheta_2 = 0.4$ divide agents into four performance categories, and each category triggers updates to exploration, exploitation, coordination, and backtracking weights; an orchestrator node additionally injects corrective prompts. This machinery is what converts active inference from a principle into a control signal.

What would settle it

Run the same maze set with the free-energy signal replaced by random or constant weights, keeping everything else identical; if success rates stay at 100% and 76.67%, the free-energy computation is not doing the work. Alternatively, generate a very-hard 30x30 maze set (the paper defines one but does not test it) and apply the same thresholds; if success collapses, the thresholds were overfit to the tested difficulties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a multi-agent system's global task performance can be optimized by giving each LLM agent a scalar variational free energy score at every step, computed as the negative Shannon entropy of its token outputs minus a weighted penalty for inefficient behaviors, and then using thresholds on that score to adjust exploration, exploitation, coordination, and backtracking weights. With two small LLMs as execution agents and one orchestrator node acting as shared memory and prompt injector, the system solves 18x18 mazes of medium difficulty at 100% success (25 runs) and 25x25 hard mazes at up to 76.67% success, outperforming solo-agent baselines by an average factor of 3.03 on medium mazes. The paper interprets these results as evidence that active-inference benchmarking mitigates partial observability and helps agents escape local minima.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result depends on the paper's formula for a free-energy score (how surprising the agent's outputs are minus how wasteful its moves are) actually measuring good exploration; if that formula is wrong or the thresholds were picked on the test mazes, the gains are just tuned heuristics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Free-energy benchmarking alone lifts medium-maze success from about 30% (or 0%) for solo small models to 72–80%, so cheap introspection can substitute for a larger model.
  • Adding an orchestrator node pushes medium-maze success to 100% for one small model and 83% for another, but on hard mazes it can reduce success (e.g., from 84.6% to 71.9% for one model), implying orchestration overhead has a cost at the edge of the model's planning horizon.
  • The framework achieves these results with small, fast-inference LLMs, suggesting production deployments on strict API budgets are feasible.
  • The reported factor of 3.03 improvement over solo ensembles on medium mazes is the headline quantitative claim of the paper.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the free-energy proxy generalizes beyond mazes, the same two-signal control loop (information gain minus behavioral cost) could be dropped into other partially observable long-horizon domains, such as warehouse navigation or multi-agent search, without retraining the LLMs.
  • The paper tunes its two thresholds on medium and hard mazes by grid search; a held-out difficulty or a randomized threshold sweep would reveal how much of the gain is active inference versus tuning.
  • Only two execution agents are reported as a balanced trade-off; testing one or three to four agents would clarify whether the orchestrator's benefit scales with team size or saturates.
  • Because the epistemic term is token entropy, not map-based information gain, one could test whether replacing it with a direct measure of newly discovered maze cells changes performance; if not, the LLM's token uncertainty is an unnecessary middleman.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Orchestrator, a multi-agent framework for LLM-based maze solving that combines an orchestrator node, reflective benchmarking, and an active-inference-inspired variational free energy (VFE) score. The VFE score is defined as epistemic uncertainty minus an accuracy cost, and threshold-based performance categories trigger dynamic weight adjustments. Experiments on procedurally generated mazes compare solo agents, FE-benchmark-only agents, and FE-plus-orchestration agents using GPT-4.1-nano and GPT-5-nano, reporting success rates, cost, and step counts. The paper claims that active-inference-driven orchestration substantially improves reliability and scalability, with up to 100% success on medium 18x18 mazes and up to 76.67% on hard 25x25 mazes.

Significance. If the mechanism worked as described, Orchestrator would offer a practical coordination method for lightweight LLMs in long-horizon tasks. The paper includes detailed appendices with prompts, algorithms, maze-generation code, and confidence-interval convergence analysis, and it candidly reports settings where orchestration hurts performance. However, because the core VFE equations as written cannot activate the high-epistemic-drive branches, the active-inference loop is inert; the reported gains are therefore not evidence for the paper's central claim. The threshold grid-search on the same difficulty levels further undermines the independent-evaluation claim. The framework may still work as a prompted multi-agent heuristic, but the paper does not establish that active inference is the operative mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (2)-(3)] Uepistemic is defined as the negative Shannon entropy of token probabilities, so it is non-positive at every step, while the policy thresholds require U > 0.6 to activate the High Epistemic Drive categories. Consequently no agent can ever enter those categories, F = U - C in Eq. (5) is non-positive, and the dynamic weight modulation in Eq. (7) can respond only to the accuracy proxy. The active-inference feedback loop is inert as written, so the reported improvements cannot be attributed to the VFE mechanism without a corrected formulation and rerun experiments.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Appendix A.5] The thresholds ϑ1=0.6 and ϑ2=0.4 were selected by grid search on medium- and hard-difficulty mazes, the same difficulties used in Table 1. This makes the reported success rates on medium and hard mazes partly a result of fitting rather than an independent evaluation. Moreover, Appendix A.5 reports different optimal thresholds for hard mazes (ϑ1=0.9, ϑ2=0.01), so the adopted setting is not even the best for the hard condition.
  3. [Table 1] The orchestration component does not consistently improve over FE-benchmarking alone. For GPT-4.1-nano on hard mazes, success drops from 84.62% (95% CI 66.47-93.85) to 71.88% (95% CI 54.63-84.44); for GPT-5-nano on medium mazes, the difference between 80.0% and 83.33% is within sampling error, and on hard mazes the confidence intervals overlap substantially. The claim of significant reliability improvement is therefore not supported by the reported point estimates and intervals.
  4. [Section 4 and Table 1] The baseline comparison is not well controlled. Section 4 states that experiments use n=2 execution agents, but the 'Solo' rows in Table 1 appear to be single-agent runs; if so, the reported factor-of-3 improvement conflates adding an agent with adding orchestration. In addition, the random-walk floor baseline is omitted on hard mazes, and no comparison is made to a standard multi-agent ensemble without FE feedback or to classical planners (e.g., A*, BFS) that solve these mazes optimally, so the absolute improvement claim is not anchored.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 27] The increment statement t←t−1 should be t←t+1, since the loop counter increases with each iteration.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1] Decimal commas and decimal points are used inconsistently (e.g., '3,03', '76,67' versus '72.22'); unify to a single convention.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'define define interaction pathways' contains a duplicated word; also, the reference to 'Figure 8' in Section 3.1 appears to point to the wrong appendix figure, since Figure 8 in Appendix A.6.5 is the confidence-interval convergence plot, not the update sequence.
  4. [Section 2 and Section 4] The term 'solo agent ensembles' is confusing: if 'solo' means a single agent, the phrase 'ensembles' is misleading; if it means multiple agents without orchestration, the baseline description should state that clearly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The epistemic-drive branch of the active-inference loop is empty by construction (U = -H ≤ 0 while high drive requires U > 0.6), and the policy thresholds were grid-searched on the same difficulty levels used to report success.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Eqs. (2)-(3) and Performance Policies]
    "Uepistemic(n,t,k) =−H[S n,t,k|S n−1,t−1,k−1] (2) ... Htokens(n,t,k) =− X j∈Kmessage pj(k) log pj(k) (3) ... High Epistemic Drive, Low Accuracy Cost (Uepistemic >0.6 ,Caccuracy <0.4)"

    Equation (3) defines H as Shannon entropy, which is nonnegative for any probability distribution. Equation (2) therefore makes Uepistemic non-positive at every step. The Performance Policies section then assigns the two 'High Epistemic Drive' categories only when Uepistemic > 0.6, a condition no agent can satisfy by construction. Consequently, the claimed active-inference benchmarking reduces to the accuracy-cost term alone; the 'maximize information gain' branch of the framework is empty, so any reported benefit cannot be attributed to the epistemic-drive mechanism as written.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A.5 and Section 5 / Table 1]
    "we conducted a brief grid search over a set of threshold parameters ϑ1 (epistemic drive) and ϑ2 (accuracy cost) and assess performance in terms of total number of steps required to solve the maze, given the respective parameter setup across both difficulties (medium and hard) ... For consistency and comparability across all experiments in this paper, we adopt the higher-performance setting of ϑ1 = 0.6 and ϑ2 = 0.4 throughout."

    The category thresholds are selected by maximizing performance on the same medium and hard difficulty levels on which Section 5 reports the framework's success rates. No held-out difficulty or separate validation set is described, so the reported 'validation' of the orchestration policy is not independent of the hyperparameter fit. The leakage is partially muted because the unreachable U > 0.6 condition makes the ϑ1 grid search vacuous, but the ϑ2 accuracy-cost threshold is still tuned on the test difficulties before being carried into the headline results.

full rationale

The main circularity is structural: the epistemic uncertainty term in Eq. (2) is defined as the negative of a Shannon entropy, so it can never exceed zero, while Section 3.2's high-epistemic-drive performance categories require a value above 0.6. The active-inference 'benchmark' that the paper credits for its gains therefore has no operational high-drive branch; the only live signal is the hand-coded accuracy proxy of Eq. (4). That is a self-definitional failure of the claimed mechanism, not merely a weak approximation. In addition, Appendix A.5 discloses that the thresholds were grid-searched on the same medium/hard difficulties that later appear in the headline success-rate table, making the evaluation partially dependent on the fitted hyperparameters. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: references to the authors' own supply-chain work [7,8] are contextual, and the active-inference citations [29,33,26] are external. The empirical maze results are real experimental outcomes and are not themselves arithmetic consequences of the equations, so the paper is not wholly circular; however, the central claim that active inference benchmarks drive the reported improvement is substantially undermined by the empty epistemic category and the tuned thresholds.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on hand-chosen scoring parameters and on several unvalidated modeling assumptions that convert VFE into a token-entropy heuristic. The only invented entity is the operational FE score itself; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Epistemic drive threshold ϑ1 = 0.6
    Grid-searched over medium and hard maze runs in Appendix A.5; used to assign agents to performance categories in Section 3.2.
  • Accuracy cost threshold ϑ2 = 0.4
    Grid-searched alongside ϑ1 on the same maze difficulties used in evaluation; the hard-maze optimum was 0.01 but 0.4 was adopted globally.
  • Risk component weights w_j = 0.20 each, sum 1.0
    Equation (4) sets all five behavioral risk components equally weighted by hand; no fitting or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Normalization cap for U and C = ±2.0
    Section 3.2 caps both uncertainty and cost at ±2.0 by hand, changing the scale of F_n and therefore category memberships.
  • Initial behavioral weights w_base = not specified
    Eq (7) and Algorithm 1 update weights from w_base, but initial values and the full update law f_Δ are not given, so the policy depends on unspecified parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper LLM output token probabilities provide a valid estimate of epistemic uncertainty between agent states
    Eqs (2) and (3) replace conditional state entropy with token-level Shannon entropy of message outputs; no theoretical or empirical justification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Jaynes maximum entropy justifies approximating the LLM's posterior as uniform
    Appendix A.3 substitutes a uniform prior to collapse the KL term into -H + ln(N); the paper drops ln(N) and treats the resulting expression as VFE.
  • ad hoc to paper Five hand-defined behavioral risk components constitute the accuracy cost
    Eq (4) defines C_accuracy as an equally weighted sum of movement efficiency, exploration efficiency, backtracking, dead-end recognition, and oscillation avoidance; no likelihood model links these to actual prediction error.
  • ad hoc to paper A well-defined weight update f_Δ exists
    Eq (7) and Algorithm 1 invoke Δw(F,∇F), but the paper never specifies the mapping from free energy and gradient to weight changes.
invented entities (1)
  • Operational variational free energy score F_n(t,k)
    purpose: Serves as the optimization signal that modulates agent weights, performance categories, and orchestrator guidance.
    F_n is not the VFE of a generative model; it is a hand-constructed score from token entropy and five behavioral costs in Eqs (2) to (5), with thresholds tuned on the evaluation mazes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orchestrator: Active Inference for Multi-Agent Systems in Long-Horizon Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJHGFEJN

@misc{pith2026250905651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orchestrator: Active Inference for Multi-Agent Systems in Long-Horizon Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJHGFEJN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05651}
}
read the original abstract

Complex, non-linear tasks challenge LLM-enhanced multi-agent systems (MAS) due to partial observability and suboptimal coordination. We propose Orchestrator, a novel MAS framework that leverages attention-inspired self-emergent coordination and reflective benchmarking to optimize global task performance. Orchestrator introduces a monitoring mechanism to track agent-environment dynamics, using active inference benchmarks to optimize system behavior. By tracking agent-to-agent and agent-to-environment interaction, Orchestrator mitigates the effects of partial observability and enables agents to approximate global task solutions more efficiently. We evaluate the framework on a series of maze puzzles of increasing complexity, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing coordination and performance in dynamic, non-linear environments with long-horizon objectives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Orchestrator Framework Overview inference principles [29, 26], stating that sentient agents act to minimize surprise and maintain their internal states by minimizing a quantity called variational free energy (VFE), Orchestrator draws on a benchmark-driven introspection mechanism that considers both, inter-agentic communication [30, 16, 12], and dynamic states between agents’ and their immediate environment [11, 30, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representation of Orchestrator’s decision-making cycle while solving a medium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Success rate and Wilson CI ranges by model configuration and difficulty as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orchestrator Cell Design - large-size reprint of Figure 1b. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of grid-search to determine best threshold parameters for maximum performance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cost-effectiveness of different configurations, showing the tradeoff between average run [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of steps taken to solve mazes, grouped by configuration and difficulty for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Statistical convergence analysis demonstrating the stabilization of performance estimates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors in Agents

    Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang, Chenfei Yuan, Chi-Min Chan, Heyang Yu, Yaxi Lu, Yi-Hsin Hung, Chen Qian, Yujia Qin, Xin Cong, Ruobing Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors in Agents. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    More Agents Is All You Need, October 2024

    Junyou Li, Qin Zhang, Yangbin Yu, Qiang Fu, and Deheng Ye. More Agents Is All You Need, October 2024. arXiv:2402.05120 [cs]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Ex- ploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View, May 2024

    Jintian Zhang, Xin Xu, Ningyu Zhang, Ruibo Liu, Bryan Hooi, and Shumin Deng. Ex- ploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View, May 2024. arXiv:2310.02124 [cs]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Leiserson, Yao Ma, and Jie Chen

    Yuanzhe Liu, Ryan Deng, Tim Kaler, Xuhao Chen, Charles E. Leiserson, Yao Ma, and Jie Chen. Lessons Learned: A Multi-Agent Framework for Code LLMs to Learn and Improve, 2025. Version Number: 1

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision and the Road Ahead, July 2025

    Junda He, Christoph Treude, and David Lo. LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision and the Road Ahead, July 2025. arXiv:2404.04834 [cs]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Visual analysis of time series data for multi-agent systems driven by large language models

    Chao Xu, Qi Zhang, Baiyan Li, Anmin Wang, and Jingsong Bao. Visual analysis of time series data for multi-agent systems driven by large language models. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Signal Processing, Computer Networks and Communications, SPCNC ’24, page 427–431, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Multi-Agent Systems and Foundation Models Enable Autonomous Supply Chains: Opportunities and Challenges

    Liming Xu, Sara Almahri, Stephen Mak, and Alexandra Brintrup. Multi-Agent Systems and Foundation Models Enable Autonomous Supply Chains: Opportunities and Challenges. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58(19):795–800, 2024. Publisher: Elsevier BV

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    On Implementing Autonomous Supply Chains: a Multi-Agent System Approach

    Liming Xu, Stephen Mak, Maria Minaricova, and Alexandra Brintrup. On Implementing Autonomous Supply Chains: a Multi-Agent System Approach, June 2024. arXiv:2310.09435 [cs]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Multiagent Evaluation Mechanisms

    Tal Alon, Magdalen Dobson, Ariel Procaccia, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, and Jamie Tucker-Foltz. Multiagent Evaluation Mechanisms. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(02):1774–1781, April 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Optima: Optimizing Effectiveness and Efficiency for LLM-Based Multi-Agent System, February 2025

    Weize Chen, Jiarui Yuan, Chen Qian, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Optima: Optimizing Effectiveness and Efficiency for LLM-Based Multi-Agent System, February 2025. arXiv:2410.08115 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    HDFlow: Enhancing LLM Complex Problem-Solving with Hybrid Thinking and Dynamic Workflows, September 2024

    Wenlin Yao, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. HDFlow: Enhancing LLM Complex Problem-Solving with Hybrid Thinking and Dynamic Workflows, September 2024. arXiv:2409.17433 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Active Inference for Self-Organizing Multi-LLM Systems: A Bayesian Ther- modynamic Approach to Adaptation, January 2025

    Rithvik Prakki. Active Inference for Self-Organizing Multi-LLM Systems: A Bayesian Ther- modynamic Approach to Adaptation, January 2025. arXiv:2412.10425 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Actor-Attention-Critic for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

    Shariq Iqbal and Fei Sha. Actor-Attention-Critic for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning. 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Grounded Answers for Multi-agent Decision- making Problem through Generative World Model

    Zeyang Liu, Xinrui Yang, and Shiguang Sun. Grounded Answers for Multi-agent Decision- making Problem through Generative World Model. 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Multi-Agent Coordination via Multi-Level Communication

    Ziluo Ding, Zeyuan Liu, Zhirui Fang, Kefan Su, Liwen Zhu, and Zongqing Lu. Multi-Agent Coordination via Multi-Level Communication. 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Plan-and-Act: Improving Planning of Agents for Long-Horizon Tasks, April 2025

    Lutfi Eren Erdogan, Nicholas Lee, Sehoon Kim, Suhong Moon, Hiroki Furuta, Gopala Anu- manchipalli, Kurt Keutzer, and Amir Gholami. Plan-and-Act: Improving Planning of Agents for Long-Horizon Tasks, April 2025. arXiv:2503.09572 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Language Agents as Optimizable Graphs, August 2024

    Mingchen Zhuge, Wenyi Wang, Louis Kirsch, Francesco Faccio, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Language Agents as Optimizable Graphs, August 2024. arXiv:2402.16823 [cs]. 9

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Long-Horizon Planning for Multi-Agent Robots in Partially Observable Environments

    Siddharth Nayak, Adelmo Morrison Orozco, Jackson Zhang, Darren Chen, Aditya Kapoor, Eric Robinson, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, James Harrison, Brian Ichter, Anuj Mahajan, and Hamsa Balakrishnan. Long-Horizon Planning for Multi-Agent Robots in Partially Observable Environments. 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Chang and Longling Geng

    Edward Y . Chang and Longling Geng. SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planning, July 2025. arXiv:2503.11951 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Adaptive Graph Pruning for Multi-Agent Communication, June 2025

    Boyi Li, Zhonghan Zhao, Der-Horng Lee, and Gaoang Wang. Adaptive Graph Pruning for Multi-Agent Communication, June 2025. arXiv:2506.02951 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Siegel, Nitya Nadgir, and Arvind Narayanan

    Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Zachary S. Siegel, Nitya Nadgir, and Arvind Narayanan. AI Agents That Matter. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, June 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Multi-Agent Collaboration via Evolving Orchestration, May 2025

    Yufan Dang, Chen Qian, Xueheng Luo, Jingru Fan, Zihao Xie, Ruijie Shi, Weize Chen, Cheng Yang, Xiaoyin Che, Ye Tian, Xuantang Xiong, Lei Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Multi-Agent Collaboration via Evolving Orchestration, May 2025. arXiv:2505.19591 [cs]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Optimizing Sequential Multi-Step Tasks with Parallel LLM Agents, July 2025

    Enhao Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, Hussein Mozannar, and Jack Gerrits. Optimizing Sequential Multi-Step Tasks with Parallel LLM Agents, July 2025. arXiv:2507.08944 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Framework, June 2025

    Yijia Xiao, Edward Sun, Di Luo, and Wei Wang. TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Framework, June 2025. arXiv:2412.20138 [q-fin]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Free energy risk metrics for systemically safe ai: Gatekeeping multi-agent study, 2025

    Michael Walters, Rafael Kaufmann, Justice Sefas, and Thomas Kopinski. Free energy risk metrics for systemically safe ai: Gatekeeping multi-agent study, 2025. arXiv:2502.04249 [cs.AI]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity, July 2025

    Parshin Shojaee, Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Maxwell Horton, Samy Bengio, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity, July 2025. arXiv:2506.06941 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    AlphaMaze: Enhancing Large Language Models’ Spatial Intelligence via GRPO

    Alan Dao and Dinh Bach Vu. AlphaMaze: Enhancing Large Language Models’ Spatial Intelligence via GRPO. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14669, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Thomas Parr, Giovanni Pezzulo, and Karl J. Friston. Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain, and Behavior. The MIT Press, 03 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Reflective Multi-Agent Collaboration based on Large Language Models

    Xiaohe Bo, Zeyu Zhang, Quanyu Dai, Xueyang Feng, Lei Wang, Rui Li, Xu Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. Reflective Multi-Agent Collaboration based on Large Language Models. 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Jaime Ruiz-Serra, Patrick Sweeney, and Michael S. Harré. Factorised Active Inference for Strategic Multi-Agent Interactions, May 2025. arXiv:2411.07362 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Surprise Minimizing Multi-Agent Learning with Energy-based Models

    Karush Suri, Xiao Qi Shi, Konstantinos Plataniotis, and Yuri Lawryshyn. Surprise Minimizing Multi-Agent Learning with Energy-based Models. 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Deep Active Inference Agents for Delayed and Long-Horizon Environments, May 2025

    Yavar Taheri Yeganeh, Mohsen Jafari, and Andrea Matta. Deep Active Inference Agents for Delayed and Long-Horizon Environments, May 2025. arXiv:2505.19867 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    How, and John Vian

    Shayegan Omidshafiei, Jason Pazis, Christopher Amato, Jonathan P. How, and John Vian. Deep Decentralized Multi-task Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning under Partial Observability, July

  27. [35]

    Papadopoulos

    Manousos Linardakis, Iraklis Varlamis, and Georgios Th. Papadopoulos. Distributed Maze Exploration Using Multiple Agents and Optimal Goal Assignment. IEEE Access, 12:101407– 101418, 2024. 10

    2024

  28. [36]

    AMaze: An Intuitive Benchmark Generator for Fast Prototyping of Generalizable Agents

    Kevin Godin-Dubois, Karine Miras, and Anna V Kononova. AMaze: An Intuitive Benchmark Generator for Fast Prototyping of Generalizable Agents. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8:1511712, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Multi-Agent Pathfinding: Definitions, Variants, and Benchmarks

    Roni Stern, Nathan Sturtevant, Ariel Felner, Sven Koenig, Hang Ma, Thayne Walker, Jiaoyang Li, Dor Atzmon, Liron Cohen, TK Kumar, et al. Multi-Agent Pathfinding: Definitions, Variants, and Benchmarks. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, volum...

    2019

  30. [38]

    A Systematic Literature Review of A* Pathfinding

    Daniel Foead, Alifio Ghifari, Marchel Budi Kusuma, Novita Hanafiah, and Eric Gunawan. A Systematic Literature Review of A* Pathfinding. Procedia Computer Science, 179:507–514, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-agent Pathfinding for Maze Research

    Semuil Tjiharjadi, Sazalinsyah Razali, and Hamzah Asyrani Sulaiman. A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-agent Pathfinding for Maze Research. Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 13(4), 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Cooperative Hybrid Multi-Agent Pathfinding Based on Shared Exploration Maps, March 2025

    Ning Liu, Sen Shen, Xiangrui Kong, Hongtao Zhang, and Thomas Bräunl. Cooperative Hybrid Multi-Agent Pathfinding Based on Shared Exploration Maps, March 2025. arXiv:2503.22162 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Memory Gym: Towards Endless Tasks to Benchmark Memory Capabilities of Agents

    Marco Pleines, Matthias Pallasch, Frank Zimmer, and Mike Preuss. Memory Gym: Towards Endless Tasks to Benchmark Memory Capabilities of Agents. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 26(6):1–40, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    MazeEval: A Benchmark for Testing Sequential Decision-Making in Language Models

    Hafsteinn Einarsson. MazeEval: A Benchmark for Testing Sequential Decision-Making in Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20395, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Solving multi-agent path finding as an LLM benchmark: How, how good and why

    Weizhe Chen, Sven Koenig, and Bistra Dilkina. Solving multi-agent path finding as an LLM benchmark: How, how good and why. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning, October 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning, October 2023. arXiv:2303.11366 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-Hop Question Answering

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdi- nov, and Christopher D Manning. HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-Hop Question Answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09600, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Checkmate in One Move

    Nitish Shirish Keskar. Checkmate in One Move. https://github.com/google/ BIG-bench/blob/main/bigbench/benchmark_tasks/checkmate_in_one/README.md,

  40. [48]

    Teaching Language Models to Critique via Reinforcement Learning, February 2025

    Zhihui Xie, Jie Chen, Liyu Chen, Weichao Mao, Jingjing Xu, and Lingpeng Kong. Teaching Language Models to Critique via Reinforcement Learning, February 2025. arXiv:2502.03492 [cs]

    2025

  41. [49]

    Self- Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback, May 2023

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self- Refine: Iterati...

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    MAS- ZERO: Designing Multi-Agent Systems with Zero Supervision, May 2025

    Zixuan Ke, Austin Xu, Yifei Ming, Xuan-Phi Nguyen, Caiming Xiong, and Shafiq Joty. MAS- ZERO: Designing Multi-Agent Systems with Zero Supervision, May 2025. arXiv:2505.14996 [cs]

    2025

  43. [51]

    AdaSociety: An Adaptive Environment with Social Structures for Multi-Agent Decision-Making

    Yizhe Huang, Xingbo Wang, Hao Liu, Fanqi Kong, Aoyang Qin, Min Tang, Song-Chun Zhu, Mingjie Bi, Siyuan Qi, and Xue Feng. AdaSociety: An Adaptive Environment with Social Structures for Multi-Agent Decision-Making. 2024. 11

    2024

  44. [52]

    Multi-Agent Graph-Attention Communication and Teaming

    Yaru Niu, Rohan Paleja, and Matthew Gombolay. Multi-Agent Graph-Attention Communication and Teaming. 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Edward Y . Chang. EVINCE: Optimizing Multi-LLM Dialogues Using Conditional Statistics and Information Theory, January 2025. arXiv:2408.14575 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Maximizing utility in multi-agent environments by anticipating the behavior of other learners, July 2024

    Angelos Assos, Yuval Dagan, and Constantinos Daskalakis. Maximizing utility in multi-agent environments by anticipating the behavior of other learners, July 2024. arXiv:2407.04889 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Adaptive and Optimal Second-order Optimistic Methods for Minimax Optimization

    Ruichen Jiang, Ali Kavis, Qiujiang Jin, Sujay Sanghavi, and Aryan Mokhtari. Adaptive and Optimal Second-order Optimistic Methods for Minimax Optimization. 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Small language models are the future of agentic ai, 2025

    Peter Belcak, Greg Heinrich, Shizhe Diao, Yonggan Fu, Xin Dong, Saurav Muralidharan, Yingyan Celine Lin, and Pavlo Molchanov. Small language models are the future of agentic ai, 2025

    2025

  49. [57]

    LookAround

    E. T. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev., 106:620–630, May 1957. 12 A Technical Appendices and Supplementary Material A.1 Orchestrator Update Algorithm Algorithm 1Multi-Agent Active Inference Maze Solver Require:MazeM, starts 0, targetτ, number of...

    1957

  50. [60]

    GPT-5-nano (Solo); 3) GPT-4.1-nano + FE Benchmark only 4) GPT-5-nano + FE Benchmark only

  51. [61]

    row 3, column 5

    GPT-4.1-nano + FE + Orchestration Node; 6) GPT-5-nano + FE + Orchestration Node Figure 7: Distribution of steps taken to solve mazes, grouped by configuration and difficulty for medium- and hard-difficulty mazes using the orchestrator framework (successful runs only). Nu- meri...

  52. [62]

    BACKTRACKING LOCK MODE ACTIVE

    Backtracking Lock Mode (override): If "BACKTRACKING LOCK MODE ACTIVE", immediately execute the required move. Ignore all other rules until cleared

  53. [63]

    Apply weight×{teammate_avoidance}

    Coordinate with Teammates: Avoid teammate-explored areas unless no alternatives. Apply weight×{teammate_avoidance}

  54. [64]

    Current weights: exploration={exploration_weight}, efficiency={efficiency_weight}

    Orchestrator & Optimization Guidance: Apply orchestrator corrections and optimization hints. Current weights: exploration={exploration_weight}, efficiency={efficiency_weight}

  55. [65]

    BACKTRACKING ACTIVE

    Standard Backtracking Mode: If "BACKTRACKING ACTIVE", execute required move and skip other checks

  56. [66]

    Oscillation Detection: If stuck looping (same 2-3 positions), call start_backtracking()

  57. [67]

    If blocked everywhere, call start_backtracking()

    Safety Check: Never move into walls. If blocked everywhere, call start_backtracking()

  58. [68]

    Avoid dead ends unless necessary for backtracking

    Exploration Priority: Use weighted movement scores. Avoid dead ends unless necessary for backtracking. AVAILABLE ACTIONS - get_current_view()→Observe 3x3 surroundings - move_north/south/east/west()→Advance one step - mark_dead_end()→Optional, no args - start_backtracking()→Ret...

  59. [69]

    Maze Exit

    Optionally: mark_dead_end() VICTORY CONDITION - If "Maze Exit" found→return FINISH immediately. FORBIDDEN - Multiple tool calls per step - Moving in loops - Explaining reasoning - Calling start_backtracking() when already backtracking 20 B. Execution-Context Message (runtime) ...

  60. [70]

    Real-time decision contexts per agent (positions, scores, weights, unexplored dirs)

  61. [71]

    Movement conflicts (local penalties vs global exploration value)

  62. [72]

    Coordination opportunities (overlap/duplication)

  63. [73]

    STRATEGIC RESPONSIBILITIES

    Global optimization patterns (bottlenecks, gaps). STRATEGIC RESPONSIBILITIES

  64. [74]

    Validate dead ends: flag incorrect markings against discovered cells

  65. [75]

    Resolve movement conflicts: where efficiency penalties block global exploration

  66. [76]

    Coordinate agents: divide unexplored areas to maximize coverage

  67. [77]

    Break local minima: recommend overrides or temporary weight relaxations

  68. [78]

    analysis

    Keep guidance decision-aware: amplify agents’ local context, do not blindly overwrite. RESPONSE CONTRACT (STRICT) - Output a SINGLE JSON object (no prose, no code fences). - Keys: "analysis", "corrections", "guidance_for_agents". - corrections.remove_dead_ends: list of [row, c...

  69. [2017]

    arXiv:1703.06182 [cs]

    arXiv

  70. [2021]

    Accessed: 2025-08-21

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.