Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Towards Effective GenAI Multi-Agent Collaboration: Design and Evaluation for Enterprise Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hierarchical multi-agent framework with payload referencing reaches 90% goal success on enterprise benchmarks, up to 70% better than a single agent.

desk verdict Useful public benchmark and honest engineering writeup, but the headline 70% multi-agent gain over single-agent is likely inflated by a flawed baseline substitution rule. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05449 v1 pith:TCIJZZ56 submitted 2024-12-06 cs.CL cs.AI

Raphael Shu , Nilaksh Das , Michelle Yuan , Monica Sunkara , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords multi-agentcollaborationLLMagentsenterpriseapplicationsassertion-basedbenchmarkingpayloadreferencingdynamicagentroutinggoalsuccessrateevaluation
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

The paper tries to establish that a centralized, hierarchical multi-agent collaboration framework can handle real enterprise tasks more reliably than a single LLM agent, and that two engineering mechanisms—payload referencing and dynamic routing—make that collaboration both more accurate and faster. Using a new assertion-based evaluation setup with LLM-simulated users and tools, it reports 90% end-to-end goal success across travel, mortgage, and software-development domains, against 53–80% for a single agent. If the result holds, it suggests that task decomposition into specialist agents, rather than one large prompt, is the practical path to dependable LLM applications in business settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the hierarchical agent architecture: a supervisor agent plans, decomposes, and delegates, while specialist agents execute narrow sub-tasks, with communication modeled as a send_message tool that supports parallel message passing. Payload referencing tags large outgoing blocks so the supervisor can pass them by reference instead of regenerating tokens. Dynamic routing uses a fast classifier to decide whether a request can skip orchestration and go straight to a specialist. The evaluation machinery is assertion-based benchmarking: each scenario comes with user-side and system-side assertions, an LLM user simulator drives the conversation, an action simulator executes tool calls, and an LLM judge scores each assertion to produce goal success rates.

What would settle it

Run the same 90 scenarios with human users operating the real travel, mortgage, and software tools, then have human annotators score goal success without seeing assertions; if the multi-agent system's overall goal success rate does not exceed the single-agent baseline, or if human–LLM agreement drops below the 77–100% range reported in Section 5.3, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the proposed multi-agent collaboration framework achieves end-to-end goal success rates of 90% across three enterprise domains when a frontier model is used for both supervisor and specialist agents, and that this beats a single agent equipped with all the same tools by up to 70% relative. The paper also claims that payload referencing—tagging large content blocks such as code with identifiers so the supervisor can reference rather than regenerate them—improves overall goal success rate by 23% relative on software-development tasks while cutting supervisor output tokens by 30%, and that a dynamic routing classifier can bypass orchestration for simple requests with over 90% classification accuracy, under 3% false switching, and roughly 350 ms classification latency. The evaluation framework uses an LLM-based assertion judge, and the paper reports generally above 85% agreement with human annotators across success metrics at one milestone checkpoint.

Load-bearing premise

The headline success rates rest on the assumption that LLM-simulated users, simulated tools, and an LLM assertion judge reproduce how real enterprise users and systems behave; if those simulators or the judge are biased in the framework's favor, the reported gains may not survive contact with real deployments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Enterprise teams can deploy supervisor–specialist agent hierarchies and expect roughly 90% goal completion across travel, mortgage, and software-development workflows when the underlying model is strong enough.
  • Equipping a single agent with all specialist tools is not a drop-in substitute: the benchmarks show an absolute goal-success regression of up to 37 percentage points for the single-agent setting.
  • Payload referencing should be enabled when agents exchange large code blocks, because it raises goal success by 23% relative and cuts supervisor output tokens by about 30%.
  • Simple requests can bypass full orchestration, because the routing classifier resolves over 90% of routing decisions with about 350 ms latency and under 3% false agent switching.
  • The assertion-based benchmarking method allows practitioners to evaluate multi-agent systems without gold-trajectory annotations, using simulated users, simulated tools, and an LLM judge instead.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 90% goal-success figure is a simulator-benchmark result, not a deployment guarantee; a field pilot with human users and real enterprise systems is the natural next test before treating it as expected production performance.
  • The payload-referencing gain on code-heavy tasks suggests the mechanism will matter most in any domain with long structured artifacts—legal documents, configuration files, generated reports—where token reduction and format preservation should yield similar benefits.
  • The routing classifier's accuracy suggests the framework could be extended toward decentralized hierarchies, where specialist agents route messages directly to each other and reduce supervisor latency further.
  • Because the evaluation relies on an LLM judge, a useful stress test is to swap the judge for a different model family and measure agreement; stability under judge substitution would make the benchmark results more trustworthy.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes a hierarchical multi-agent collaboration (MAC) framework for enterprise applications, comprising a supervisor agent, specialist agents, inter-agent message passing, payload referencing for large content blocks, and a dynamic routing mechanism that can bypass orchestration. The authors introduce assertion-based benchmarking, in which 90 handcrafted scenarios across Travel, Mortgage, and Software Development are run with LLM-simulated users and tools, and success is judged by an LLM against author-written assertions. They report that MAC achieves 90% overall goal success rate across the three domains with Claude 3.5 Sonnet, improves goal success by up to 70% relative to a single-agent baseline, that payload referencing yields a 23% relative GSR improvement on Software, and that routing classification exceeds 90% accuracy with roughly 350 ms latency. The dataset and evaluation scripts are publicly released, and a human-agreement study on an intermediate checkpoint shows agreement ratios mostly above 85%.

Significance. If the reported results are trustworthy, the paper provides a useful engineering contribution: a concrete architecture for enterprise multi-agent systems, a public benchmark, and an automated evaluation methodology that is cheaper than full human evaluation. The explicit formalization of goal success as an expected Bernoulli variable, the public release of scenarios and assertions, and the human-agreement check are genuine strengths. However, the central quantitative claims rest on an evaluation whose baseline construction and statistical reporting are currently not strong enough to support the headline numbers. The paper is therefore significant as a system description and benchmark proposal, but the specific superiority claims over single-agent systems and the latency benefits of routing require additional validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 5] The single-agent baseline is scored with the multi-agent assertion set under a substitution rule that is undefined for assertions describing interactions between two specialist agents. The rule explicitly handles assertions mentioning the primary agent and one specialist agent, but Software-domain assertions such as a Design agent handing specifications to a Code agent, or a Deploy agent coordinating Infrastructure and Application agents, remain verbatim in the single-agent evaluation and are impossible for a single agent to satisfy. Since Software has the highest assertion count per scenario (7.47) and the largest reported relative gain (70%, from 0.53 to 0.90 GSR), the headline improvement may partly reflect a process-compliance bias rather than goal completion. I request that the authors either derive a well-defined adaptation for all assertion types or report single-agent results against a goal-completion-only assertion set.
  2. [Section 5, Tables 5-8] All GSR and latency numbers are point estimates from 30 scenarios per domain, with no confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple-seed variation. For instance, the Mortgage comparison of 0.80 versus 0.90 corresponds to small counts out of 30 and the intervals would overlap substantially; the Travel comparison is similar. The paper's conclusion that multi-agent collaboration improves goal success by up to 70% needs binomial confidence intervals or an equivalent uncertainty quantification, as well as a statement about run-to-run variance of the LLM components.
  3. [Section 5.3 and Appendix D] The human-agreement study was run on an intermediate milestone checkpoint using Claude 3.5 Sonnet (20240620) as supervisor and Sonnet 3.0 as specialists, not on the final configurations whose GSR values appear in Tables 5 and 11. The agreement ratios therefore do not directly validate the headline measurements. The Software Supervisor GSR agreement was already the lowest at 77%, which is precisely the domain with the largest claimed improvement and the highest assertion density. I ask for human evaluation on the final configuration, or an explicit argument for why agreement transfers across model versions.
  4. [Section 5.2, Tables 7-8] The paper claims that dynamic routing 'substantially improves efficiency' and can cut latency, but the routing experiments report only routing-mode overhead (600-800 ms per turn) and do not compare against the same scenarios with routing disabled. Without a paired comparison of routing mode versus full orchestration on identical inputs, the latency reduction claim is not supported by the presented evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The abstract says 'up to 70%' improvement while Section 5.1 states 'an absolute regression of up to 37%'; please clarify consistently whether gains are absolute or relative, and define the computation.
  2. [Section 6.1, Table 11] The sentence explaining that payload referencing increases user-perceived turn latency because 'specialist agents operating for a smaller number of turns may be detrimental to the overall goal success' is confusing, since the payload-referencing condition has higher GSR; please rephrase or provide supporting analysis.
  3. [Section 4.4, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) defines psuccess as an expectation, but no estimator or sampling procedure is given for approximating it from finite scenario sets; a short definition of the empirical GSR estimator would improve precision.
  4. [Section 4.2] The maximum number of user simulation turns is fixed to 5 without sensitivity analysis; a sentence on whether results change with this cap would be useful.
  5. [Appendix B, Table 14] There is a typo in the action group name 'NewsSeartch' (should be 'NewsSearch').
  6. [Section 3.2] The claim in Section 3.2 that 'our ablation experiments demonstrated a 27% relative reduction' is only substantiated later in Section 6.1; a forward reference would help the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline single-agent comparison is self-referential: single-agent GSR is measured on multi-agent assertions, so the 'up to 70%' gain is partly a definitional artifact; the 90% GSR and ablations are empirical.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (Coordination Mode Experiments), single-agent baseline paragraph; Software hierarchy description in Section 5]
    "We reuse the assertions collected for the multi-agent setup but replace any mentions of specialist agents with supervisor agent ... For any assertions about inter-agent behaviors, we would replace mentions of the primary agent with “user” and mentions of the specialist agent with the supervisor agent ... In Software, the supervisor agent can call on Deploy agent, which can then call on Infrastructure agent and Application agent."

    The single-agent GSR is computed by applying this substitution rule to the multi-agent assertion set. The rule is only defined for assertions involving the primary agent and one specialist agent; assertions about interactions between two specialist agents—such as Deploy coordinating Infrastructure and Application in the Software sub-hierarchy—are left unchanged and cannot be satisfied by a single agent because those agents do not exist. Software has the highest assertion density (7.47 per scenario) and is exactly where the largest relative gain (0.90 vs 0.53, +70%) is reported. Thus the headline improvement is partly a definitional artifact of scoring the single agent against a multi-agent process checklist rather than an independent goal-completion comparison.

full rationale

The absolute 90% GSR for the multi-agent framework is an empirical measurement with some external grounding: the authors released the scenarios and assertions and ran a human-agreement study on 90 trajectories at an intermediate checkpoint, with agreement mostly above 85%. The payload-referencing gain (23%) and communication-overhead reduction (27%) are ablation measurements, not derived quantities. Routing accuracy is measured against human-annotated labels. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The only notable self-referential element is the single-agent baseline: it is evaluated with the multi-agent assertion set, and the substitution rule is underspecified for two-specialist interactions, so the comparative claim ('up to 70%') is partly forced by the evaluation design. This does not make the whole paper circular, but it materially weakens the headline comparison. Score 4 reflects one significant self-referential step while the central absolute results retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the self-built benchmark and the faithfulness of LLM simulation and judgment. The only hand-chosen numeric settings are the simulation turn cap and dataset size; no fitted coefficients appear because the paper reports measurements rather than derivations.

free parameters (2)
  • Maximum user simulation turns = 5
    Cap on simulated user turns to force termination (Section 4.2). Influences which sessions end as failures.
  • Scenarios per domain = 30 per domain (90 total)
    Handcrafted dataset size; no power analysis. Point estimates without confidence intervals.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM agents reliably follow system prompts and tool-use instructions
    The entire framework depends on instruction-following capability of models like Claude Sonnet (Sections 3, 5).
  • domain assumption The LLM judge (GPT-4o) accurately evaluates assertion satisfaction
    The primary GSR metric rests on LLM judgments; human agreement was checked on one intermediate checkpoint only (Section 5.3).
  • domain assumption User and action simulators faithfully emulate real users and tools
    Simulated trajectories stand in for real enterprise interactions (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption The 90 handcrafted scenarios are representative of enterprise applications
    Results are claimed as guidance for enterprise deployments based on these three domains (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Effective GenAI Multi-Agent Collaboration: Design and Evaluation for Enterprise Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCIJZZ56

@misc{pith2026241205449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Effective GenAI Multi-Agent Collaboration: Design and Evaluation for Enterprise Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCIJZZ56}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05449}
}
read the original abstract

AI agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in problem solving. Through combining many intelligent agents, multi-agent collaboration has emerged as a promising approach to tackle complex, multi-faceted problems that exceed the capabilities of single AI agents. However, designing the collaboration protocols and evaluating the effectiveness of these systems remains a significant challenge, especially for enterprise applications. This report addresses these challenges by presenting a comprehensive evaluation of coordination and routing capabilities in a novel multi-agent collaboration framework. We evaluate two key operational modes: (1) a coordination mode enabling complex task completion through parallel communication and payload referencing, and (2) a routing mode for efficient message forwarding between agents. We benchmark on a set of handcrafted scenarios from three enterprise domains, which are publicly released with the report. For coordination capabilities, we demonstrate the effectiveness of inter-agent communication and payload referencing mechanisms, achieving end-to-end goal success rates of 90%. Our analysis yields several key findings: multi-agent collaboration enhances goal success rates by up to 70% compared to single-agent approaches in our benchmarks; payload referencing improves performance on code-intensive tasks by 23%; latency can be substantially reduced with a routing mechanism that selectively bypasses agent orchestration. These findings offer valuable guidance for enterprise deployments of multi-agent systems and advance the development of scalable, efficient multi-agent collaboration frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05449 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the hierarchical agents approach for multi-agent collaboration. In a centralized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of parallel agent communication. In this example, the supervisor agent simultane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of payload referencing mechanism. In this example, the Coder agent delivers code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dynamic agent routing, where an incoming request can be routed directly to a specialist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of end-to-end assertion-based benchmarking with scenarios and assertions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MAGPIE: A dataset for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluation

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MAGPIE is a 158-scenario benchmark showing large language model agents misclassify and leak contextually private information in multi-agent collaboration, even under explicit privacy instructions.

  2. Know the Ropes: A Heuristic Strategy for LLM-based Multi-Agent System Design

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A heuristic framework that decomposes known algorithms into typed LLM-agent subtasks lifts small-model accuracy on knapsack and assignment problems from near-zero to high levels after fixing one bottleneck agent.

  3. Supporting Construction Worker Well-Being with a Multi-Agent Conversational AI System

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multi-agent LLM chatbot with separate safety, HR, and peer personas outperformed a single generic chatbot on usability, psychological needs, social presence, and trust in a 12-person role-play study.

  4. ThinkTank: A Framework for Generalizing Domain-Specific AI Agent Systems into Universal Collaborative Intelligence Platforms

    cs.MA 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    ThinkTank generalizes scientific collaboration roles, meeting formats, and retrieval-augmented knowledge integration into one reusable multi-agent platform.

  5. Securing Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Threat Model and Mitigation Framework for Generative AI Agents

    cs.CR 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    ATFAA consolidates known LLM-agent risks into a 9-threat, 5-domain taxonomy, and SHIELD prescribes 6 mitigation pillars including segmentation, heuristic monitoring, and logging immutability.

  6. Meta-Thinking in LLMs via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: A Survey

    cs.AI 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper surveys existing work on LLM meta-thinking and argues that multi-agent reinforcement learning is a promising missing ingredient for building self-correcting language models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Claude 3.5 Sonnet, 2024

    Anthropic. Claude 3.5 Sonnet, 2024. https://www.anthropic.com/news/ claude-3-5-sonnet , Accessed on 2024-12-06

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Negar Arabzadeh, Siqing Huo, Nikhil Mehta, Qingyun Wu, Chi Wang, Ahmed Hassan Awadal- lah, Charles L. A. Clarke, and Julia Kiseleva. Assessing and verifying task utility in LLM- powered applications. In Empirical Methods of Natural Language Processing , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott G...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors in agents

    Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang, Chenfei Yuan, Chen Qian, Chi-Min Chan, Yujia Qin, Yaxi Lu, Ruobing Xie, et al. Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors in agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10848, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    CrewAI, 2024

    CrewAI. CrewAI, 2024. https://www.crewai.com/, Accessed on 2024-12-06

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    AgentQuest: A modular benchmark framework to measure progress and improve LLM agents

    Luca Gioacchini, Giuseppe Siracusano, Davide Sanvito, Kiril Gashteovski, David Friede, Roberto Bifulco, and Carolin Lawrence. AgentQuest: A modular benchmark framework to measure progress and improve LLM agents. In Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Llm multi-agent systems: Challenges and open problems

    Shanshan Han, Qifan Zhang, Yuhang Yao, Weizhao Jin, Zhaozhuo Xu, and Chaoyang He. Llm multi-agent systems: Challenges and open problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03578, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework

    Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative fr...

    2024

  2. [10]

    AI Agents That Matter

    Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Zachary S Siegel, Nitya Nadgir, and Arvind Narayanan. AI Agents That Matter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01502, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    LangGraph, 2024

    LangChain. LangGraph, 2024. https://www.langchain.com/langgraph, Accessed on 2024-12-06

    2024

  4. [12]

    Camel: Communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large language model society

    Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. Camel: Communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large language model society. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Theory of mind for multi-agent collaboration via large language models

    Huao Li, Yu Chong, Simon Stepputtis, Joseph Campbell, Dana Hughes, Charles Lewis, and Katia Sycara. Theory of mind for multi-agent collaboration via large language models. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Toolsandbox: A stateful, conversational, interactive evaluation benchmark for llm tool use capabilities

    Jiarui Lu, Thomas Holleis, Yizhe Zhang, Bernhard Aumayer, Feng Nan, Felix Bai, Shuang Ma, Shen Ma, Mengyu Li, Guoli Yin, et al. Toolsandbox: A stateful, conversational, interactive evaluation benchmark for llm tool use capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04682, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hello GPT-4o, 2024

    OpenAI. Hello GPT-4o, 2024. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/ , Accessed on 2024-12-06

    2024

  8. [16]

    O’Brien, Carrie J

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , 2023. 16

    2023

  9. [17]

    ChatDev: Communicative agents for software development

    Chen Qian, Wei Liu, Hongzhang Liu, Nuo Chen, Yufan Dang, Jiahao Li, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Xin Cong, Juyuan Xu, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. ChatDev: Communicative agents for software development. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational L...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Multiagent systems

    Munindar P Singh. Multiagent systems. Springer, 1994

    1994

  11. [19]

    Should we be going mad? a look at multi-agent debate strategies for llms

    Andries Petrus Smit, Nathan Grinsztajn, Paul Duckworth, Thomas D Barrett, and Arnu Pretorius. Should we be going mad? a look at multi-agent debate strategies for llms. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Multiagent systems

    Katia P Sycara. Multiagent systems. AI magazine, 19(2):79–79, 1998

    1998

  13. [21]

    Multi-agent collaboration: Harnessing the power of intelligent llm agents

    Yashar Talebirad and Amirhossein Nadiri. Multi-agent collaboration: Harnessing the power of intelligent llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03314, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    AutoGen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Ryen W White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang. AutoGen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework. In COLM, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Exploring collaboration mechanisms for LLM agents: A social psychology view

    Jintian Zhang, Xin Xu, Ningyu Zhang, Ruibo Liu, Bryan Hooi, and Shumin Deng. Exploring collaboration mechanisms for LLM agents: A social psychology view. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Towards efficient LLM grounding for embodied multi-agent collaboration

    Yang Zhang, Shixin Yang, Chenjia Bai, Fei Wu, Xiu Li, Zhen Wang, and Xuelong Li. Towards efficient LLM grounding for embodied multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14314, 2024. 17 Appendix A Benchmarking Data Artifacts Table 13: Example artifacts from benchmarki...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.